Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Here we are, we have a meeting. We're getting started later in the day than we had originally planned, but here we are. It is Friday, April 3. It is a little bit after one We are continuing our work on H955. Everyone's having a really fun afternoon. And yesterday, we did an initial walkthrough with Beth St. James. Folks asked clarifying questions, but we didn't get into some of the underlying theories and intent. And so I asked Representative Conlon to come and share some of the committee's big picture thinking. And then if anyone has questions about where intent was, I thought it be helpful for us to ask Peter rather than the staff, Peter. Boris, yours, if there's anything you want to say.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Well, I think I covered most of it this morning in the caucus of the whole. I guess I will just emphasize the pathway here was really based on frankly, a lot of my own time traveling to all corners of the state with the Commission on the Future of Public Education. Thousands of responses we received from Lamoille, into the building here. We had the redistricting task force report. And then we had really the members and the committee all sort of providing the input and sort of the politically plausible pathway, which got us to where we are, which is a departure from forced mergers and toward a voluntary process and building on the redistricting task force recommendation, mandatory cooperative education service areas as a way to quickly move towards scale and savings? I

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: can ask a question if no one else has one. Okay. One of the pieces of Act 73 and the recommendations to the task force was about brand list and having sort of similar brand lists from district to district. And I know that the seesaws have advised boundary areas to be brokered?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: I'm gonna interrupt you right there. Yes. So the districts have advised boundaries to be brokered. Thank you. Cease of boundaries are in statute.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: There are seven CISAs.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, and so underneath this CISA, there's the boundaries?

[Rep. James Masland]: Yes, the guidance. Thank you, what's the special term?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: The guidance maps or the guidance groupings.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay,

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We start with groupings.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The guidance groupings? Yep. When you all were coming up with those guidance groupings?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We did not think about brandless, if that's where you brought the topic.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. And I know that

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: if a group

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: decides not to become a district, default to current law and their ability to seek other districts. And I'm thinking about ways we can sort of find ways to reinsert people considering socioeconomic diversity and grand list consistency through that process. And I just I don't wanna mess up a thing you guys already thought a lot about and decided against.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: No, so we did not think about grand list and consistency. We thought about geographic proximity, thought a lot about regional high schools and middle schools and trying to build around that. One of the reasons why we made it guidance and flexible and all of that is because we respected super supervisory union lines. But of course, within a supervisory union in many places, you've got numerous school districts who could actually move in a different direction outside of that grouping. You think of the Central Vermont area where we've got a whole number of high schools that in an ideal world have had so much declining enrollment that they could be combined into one. But for example, one of the smaller high schools on the outskirts is in a different supervisory unit. However, they would probably tend to be looking toward the capital region. So that's just an area as an example of why we built in the flexibility.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah, that sounds good.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan]: I was looking over at Section 17, so that seems to be where all the money is. I don't know what the total is, it looks like 210,000 for study committee reimbursement, you put $10,000 for each study committee participation, 442,000. Anyway, do you folks consider where that money's coming from? Is that part of the 4,000,000 that was initially laid out for Yes. 'seventy Okay, so that's already supposedly still there?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yes, yep. In this year's, you can probably talk with JFO to give better clarity on this. But in the budget this year, there's very clear language about appropriations being used for exactly this kind of work. Okay, thanks.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Anyone else?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Yeah, so

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan]: the thing about

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: the CISA and the one that exists now, Vermont Learning Collaborative, and how that is the designated be the keeper of all efforts here. But naturally, that CISA would be would really include Hartford. Yes. Did you discuss that after this entity is set up and it could then facilitate the creation of the other CESAs, then it might be able to be adjusted and boundary to include Okay.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: So thank you. We actually discussed this a lot because we kept wanting to include Hartford, because it is a currently existing CISA, if we were to change its currently existing boundary, it would have to be recreated as a new CISA. We figured it better to sort of orphan Hartford a little bit, and then that currently existing Vermont Learning Collaborative can include it at a later date when itself rejiggers its boundary.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: That was really what you were thinking, and that it would make sense to do that once everything else is up and running.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: That's right, because we disrupt don't want the currently existing Provided Learning Collaborative because of their role in future work.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I had a follow-up question on the same thing, because I just jumped at me too, because, and I assume the way the seesaws are structured and the way you envision it, I mean, lot of the Southeast students are actually placed in the Hartford specialized settings. So I assume you can contract outside the CSOB for specialized settings in the transition until such time.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yeah, mean, I think you probably could answer the question better than I can and how CSOs operate. But what's really great about the CESA model is that you can color outside the lines, not necessarily from a governance point of view, but from service offering view.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: That's a hub. That's a real hub for the whole economy.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Yeah. Just to be really focused on that particular ASUSO, there's $50,000 for all the other six except for that one and towards helping to hire the executive director and that kind of stuff. So even though they've incurred some of those expenses, doesn't it make sense to give them some kind of financial incentive to manage the project?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Well, one thing we have them managing the facilitators. These are the merger study committee facilitators, and they are part of the budget for that is about $32,000 for them for that overhead. But I hear what you're saying. That was not a request that was made. Very enthusiastic about spreading what they do across the state. Did not hear that. They did not say, Hey, could you reimburse us since we already did this?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I have a very specific question about Chittenden County. It looks like in the proposed merger study groups,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: some districts that are of scale, that

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: are in the boundaries, are asked to go and look at murders with other districts, and others are left on their own. What was the thought process behind which one's role

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: did Yes. Some of it had to do with So the ones where This part was much more art than science. And the ones that are at scale, they're at scale and geographically large. So we thought that would be sort of trickier. I think that there would be probably no objection. I mean, first of all, we allowed the flexibility. We would hope the conversation would take place. But sort of the geographic concentration of Winooski, Burlington, South Burlington is a very small geographic area, whereas the larger districts of CBSD and Mount Mansfield are big geographically, as well as at scale from a student point of view.

[Rep. James Masland]: Representative. Thank you. I think you said, Peter, that the representative comments, who's trying to explain, old school. The CSIS will manage the facilitators, is that what you said?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: What I said was the currently existing CISA, which is the Learning Collaborative, has offered to manage the facilitators with the goal being that sort of by using this entity, the work can get done faster than if we're through a state Sorry, of

[Rep. James Masland]: what do mean by manage?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Well, so they would be in charge of hiring, training, and deploying the facilitators statewide. The one currently existing Vermont Learning Collaborative. Statewide obligation. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: can, if you're a single district, hire a facilitator.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: You wouldn't have to hire the facilitator?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Would say.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: The facilitator would come to you You're

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: hired by your mother and father.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yes, absolutely.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: That basically you're allowed to-

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We want the facilitators and we really want them to be flexible and open, which they will be because their job is to try to create newer, larger districts so that if if CVSD and Mount Bansfield said we really could combine, that that would be facilitated by a facilitator.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Personally just wanted to thank you for looking at special ed, particularly as the first place to start, because we've

[Rep. James Masland]: seen a lot

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: seizures right now. It seems like a place that you get huge benefit pretty quickly. So I really think that's positive.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: I would just add to that, that the current Vermont Learning Collaborative, that has been their focus and they are always saving people money. So it's really a proven concept.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah. And then I wonder, this was a huge lift and you spent a tremendous amount of time on the potential district that under EC says and so forth, if you had had another week, are there things that you didn't get to, wish you'd gotten?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: That's a really great question. I think we could have debated the suggested groupings for the next three years.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I should say other than that.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: At a certain point, we sort of had to just stop and provide, and that's why we provided the flexibility. We probably could, have spent more time on perhaps some of the tweaking of like, is 50,000 the right amount? We checked with

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan]: the current

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: existing CISA about really what would a consulting about be. Checked in with people who actually did some of this work in Act 46. We checked in with just basic consultants saying, this is the right number. So we could have done perhaps more work there, but I think we would have just done a lot of circling around the same thing over and over again.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Can we talk about timing? Because I think if it became effective July 1, right, 2026, the act. But then I think there was a hiring within a certain period of time for the main facilitator by October 15, something like that. So the idea, what we were talking to about with one particular school district last week, maybe it was this week, was about the amount of time it took for their study committee to look at two different school districts and the time it took to actually get to the point where their voters could vote on it, and that was about eighteen months. I think in your timeline, it's a year. That's right. So how was that eighteen months too long? When

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: it came to Act 46, Act 46 was brand new. Nobody had gone through this in the way prescribed under Act 46. We've now been through this. And I guess it is ambitious, but hope would be that we have just a large cohort of superintendents and school board people, retired and currently active, who have been through this. And so hopefully a year is sufficient to get to that point.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Based on experience of everyone.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: You know, the whole process to come up with everything takes until election day minus the whatever time you need to warrant something, 11/07/2028.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We took a little bit of testimony about what encouraged mergers and what didn't encourage mergers under Act 46, but I wonder, imagine you took more testimony about that than we did. So do you have any

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We did not get into incentives and what our incentives are, what works as incentives and what doesn't. I can tell you that in the Act 46 mergers, the incentives probably made people move faster, but I think they would have made the same decision because most of the mergers at Act 46 were supervisory unions where everybody was feeding into a unified union high school. So they were already in like for at least group four grades, if not six grades were already a single district. And they had high functioning supervisory unions. So they were easier to merge. So I think they would have merged anyway. And I think they also said, if we don't merge, we're going to be forced. So let's just take the money, which is an incentive sort of I'm not sure if it's needed, but it certainly made people move faster. I mean, anytime you sort of offer it, it can help. But I've heard people say, Nope, didn't do any good because we weren't going to do it. And they ended up being forced and they lost out on the zero one zero dollars zero eight dollars merger incentives, tax breaks.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I know that the CISOs obviously were a major recommendation of the Redistricting Task Force. One of the other major recommendations was regional middle and high schools. Was there any discussion of where those regional middle and high schools might naturally be located, or how

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: many, or any of that?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: I think the redistricting task force identified those areas pretty clearly, and there are probably others as well. We thought about that within our groupings. So you can see Rutland City and out, Rutland High School and out is sort of one of the groupings because we've got Procter, Pulte, West Rutland, Fair Haven, all small high schools. Capital Region we just talked about. Then spent a lot of time discussing the Northeast Kingdom and dividing things, there's talks going on up there because Newport really needs to replace its high school or North Country. Lake Region would be the right fit to mix with them, but Lake Region's also having conversations with Hazen. So it got a little We said, all right, let's just provide a lot of flexibility in the work of a facilitator to bring the right groups together. But yes, with a lot of that, that was really the thought around regional high schools. But I would say the same thing in the Woodstock, Hartford area, where it is very clear Woodstock High School needs a major, major rebuild. But Hartford, PCB problems and other issues, also is staring down the barrel of that as well.

[Rep. James Masland]: What's the window of opportunity for the tax incentives?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Well, we didn't provide any tax incentives in But but with act 46 Oh, act 46. Act 46 had them if you were basically an early adopter.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We heard a funny thing in testimony this week about that, that districts that had received it, it went away, when it started to phase out, the folks in that district experienced that as a tax increase, which makes so much sense if you're a normal person just looking at your tax bill. But it was just like, yeah, it was a helpful piece of insight.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yeah, it's just like buying down tax rates, right? As you lose that incentive, you've to make up for the taxes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah, depends on what you mean. Maybe it can be worded as a freeze. Freeze it. Freeze it at that, and then it's unfrozen. Just thought I should say that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Who picks up the other side of the balloon when you freeze?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'm just saying, I'm saying it's frozen, but That might help people realize it's frozen and that it's going go up again. Peter, would you mind just touching on pre K? We'd spent a lot of time talking about it, and then it went to human services, and now it's in here as a study, and I was just wondering what the discussion.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: So I would say it's probably best to hear from the folks from human services. That was language that came over to us. And we talked with them a little bit about what they were hoping from the study. We continue to include it, and really frankly, to let you folks have questions about it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. All right, thank you all

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: very much, great questions, really.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah, Rebecca. Are there other, I mean, there's other pieces that are outside this that are germane to implementation, successful implementation. Are there any other things that you think it's worth us taking a look at to make sure that we're supporting successful

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: You know, it's really the two that come to mind. I'm sure the two that you're talking about is that, you know, where is there a role for some sort of incentive? Is there a role for school construction to sort of drive the same policy in the same direction? You know, we've got, I guess, we're providing, you know, our bill provides sort of the startup and logistical support to the extent that we felt we could do. I'm not sure I have anything beyond that.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I guess I'm thinking we're rolling out class sizes, we're rolling out new graduation requirements, at the same time they're all going through the merger process. Is there anything that we need to be doing to sort of support that transition implementation? Do you think they have the clarity around?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: That's a great question for the field. It's interesting with the class size minimums. It's a three year implementation, yet school districts are already acting on it. And so I think that they are seeing what's ahead in the future. I really hope this is what drives mergers, is that they're seeing what's ahead in the future, perhaps foundation formula, and they're acting on it to sort of further that effort. I'm a little blank right now with the answer for that. Yeah.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And do you expect those class size requirements to be the same in all settings that are publicly funded?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: I would say that the, I feel that what we passed in Act seven thirty was pretty clear, that it was the same rules. Life can shift, same rules. Yeah. It was certainly the intent.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: And the foundation for that, I could just share the committee's approach to pushing that out.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: If you look at how we have it time lined out with merger votes on election day twenty twenty eight. That is a period of which school board currently existing districts are already well into the budgeting process. So you can't really monkey wrench that, so that then you are moving that ahead of year as a result. And I think as you sort of walk through it, you end up with the '20 30 that you have in in here.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Fiscal year 2030 or?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Happy Friday, everybody.

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

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: much. Great to visit with you.

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

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: rest well this weekend.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So let's spend the next hour going back into the field with Beth. And folks are now welcome to ask non technical questions once that settles in and fetch. And then what I'm imagining is, before we are together again, we'll try to put all of the other language together so we're looking at it all in one place. If I were you, I would wonder, Madam Chair, when are we planning to vote this bill out? And the answer is, gosh, committee, I don't know. But I'm hoping to figure it out by Monday.

[Rep. James Masland]: Yeah, just wanted to, and I'm not asking that right now, I just want to offer a clarifying question, something I said yesterday about Gaussian brain. About what? Gaussian brain, which is, it's a tool, I guess you could say, in electrical analysis, simple stuff from high school, that allows you to isolate part of the diagrammatic problem of what you're trying to solve from exterior stuff. And one of the things that we don't get into in this community is school choice. And that's someone else's bailiwick. As we work through whatever we do, we have to sort of, at least implicitly within our community, agree to what we're talking about and what we're not, because there's a lot of things that get tangled up with each other continuously when we talk with people outside the room, outside the building. We would love to solve school choice, but I think it's gonna require outside conversations to get to that. That's just the point. So thank you for listening in, and I go on tangents once in a while, and I hope that sometimes they're helpful. Thank you, that's all done.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, and I think we all go on tangents sometimes. Pardon? I think we all

[Rep. James Masland]: go on tangents sometimes. Okay, good. But thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I think it's probably not worth this type of the question that you asked, how we try to bring a grand less equality.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It's very, I'm thinking

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: about it. Perfect.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Me too, so let's keep on thinking about that one. Beth, can we just essentially go through the bill again?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Perfect.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Beth, folks, we have a single hour left in our day together.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: St. James Office of Legislative Counsel. H955 as introduced. Do you wanna start with the intent language? Okay. Do want me to walk through it again, or do you wanna take the lead on discussion on each section?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I can walk through it again. Thank you. I'm sorry. Can we go through the part about the intent? I'm just kidding. That part was a joke. Sorry.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Legislative intent, section one, subsection A is taken directly from Act 73 to ensure each student is provided substantially equal educational opportunities that will prepare the student to thrive in a twenty first century world. It is the intent of the General Assembly to work strategically, intentionally, and thoughtfully to ensure that each incremental change made to Vermont's public education system provides strength and support to its only constitutionally required governmental service. Subsection B, the General Assembly recognizes that Vermont schools anchor local economies and community identity, connecting young people to their homes while supporting workforce development and long term stability, and that different regions of Vermont have different needs, challenges, and opportunities. Further, it is the intent of the General Assembly to ensure that local voice, community, retain an important role in Vermont's evolving education landscape. New Reader Assistance heading, Cooperative Educational Service Areas, Section two, is the amendment to all of Chapter 10 in Title 16, which was formerly the BOCES chapter and now this is the Seesaw chapter. I'm just going to scroll until we get to the big substantive changes.

[Rep. James Masland]: Just one clarifying question.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Seesaw, seesaw? Depends on who you ask.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have been saying seesaw because it is easier for me. I think other people are saying seesaw.

[Rep. James Masland]: Or sets up.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is beyond my scope of practice. But

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: you've probably seen it written more than anyone, so

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, there's no W at the end. Oh, okay,

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: all right.

[Rep. James Masland]: Let's see.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But seesaw rolls off the tongue easier for me. So it shall be what I say until you correct me.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: definition for seesaw. An association of supervisory unions created pursuant to this chapter to deliver shared programs and services to complement the educational programs of member SCUs in a cost effective manner. Seesaw shall be a body politic incorporate with the powers and duties afforded it under this chapter. I'm on page four of section six zero three. Subsection A is where the supervisory unions are arranged into the seesaws. Do you want to go into detail about the membership? No.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: I was wondering in that first paragraph on six zero three, why all the strikeouts was just found not to be?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you look at Queen Reed's through the strikeouts, it says, When boards of two of our supervisory unions vote to explore the advisability of entering into a written agreement, all of that language is for the voluntary process of forming a CSOB, and you've taken the voluntariness off the table by creating them in statute.

[Rep. James Masland]: Got it. Thank you.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Good. I'm wondering, does this mean, let's say you have trucks for your district and your trucks say, Winnipeg School District, do you have to now change the name on the truck?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Seesaws are not governing units.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's right.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're a repository for programming should you choose to take advantage of it. Correct.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: That's right. You have to be

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a member, but you do not have to use their services. Any of their services? Correct. Okay. With the exception of the facilitator that is built into this bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And do they have to to offer any particular services? Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if we scroll through the membership,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Bylaws.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you can see their bylaws. It's very open ended. The programs or services offered by the Seesaw. So that contemplates that there is a world in which those offerings are going to be different for each seesaw. Then if we jump to section six zero four on page 13, line 11, The powers of seesaws. They have the power to provide educational programs, services, facilities, and professional and other staff that in its discretion best serve the needs of its members, including professional development, curriculum coordination development, and transportation. That's all suggestion. And then on line 20, following law is not a suggestion. I have to follow the law on line 17 through 20. Then when you look at line 20, at a minimum, a CSO shall offer the services in the following areas to its members. But it's just offer. There's nothing in here that requires members to then purchase those services, use those services, avail themselves of those services.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is it about this part? No, it's on this part. Okay, let me finish. Let's just wait for APD wait one second.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So special education, including implementation and maintenance of tiered systems to support and the provision of low incidence, high cost services, business and administrative services, and unique school district creation, consultation, and facilitation. So,

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I appreciate the clarity around they may offer. What cooperative services in other states do is often saying, if you use the CSOP for the service or the CSOP October for the service, you don't provide it at the supervisory level. So they build in protections against redundancy. And I know when Vermont moved special ed to the supervisory level, there were some effort to make clear that supervisory services, including we moved staff for special ed to the SE level. So I wondered if there was some parallel here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So nothing in this bill changes the responsibility changes who is designated in Vermont as an LEA. And it does not change the fact that the supervisory union remains responsible for the provision of special education services. It allows seesaws, through their bylaws, to decide what services they're going to offer, with the exceptions of those in the financial terms and conditions of membership. It does not speak to, if you purchase this service from us, then you are no longer responsible for providing it. I think, practically, my understanding of the way this works is it may be that you contract The seesaw is providing You have a contract to provide a service. It's still your responsibility to provide that service. And you are doing that through purchasing that service through seesaw. It could be that the seesaw is operating its own program. And so if it's special education, the LEA is still, at the end of the day, going to be responsible for the provision of that service. How it obtains that service could depend on a number of different things, whether it's obtaining it through the seesaw, whether it's hiring its own special educators, etcetera. I don't think that this specifies any specifics as to redundancy because the natural business processes involved would perhaps alleviate that. That

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: was helpful. And I think the longer term, that may be something to really watch. Let me take it out of special ed, because you do retain the LEA of the district, the governing entity. But for example, professional development, let's say you're working curriculum at the CSO level. If you contract with the CSO and the district also maintains a local curriculum coordinator, then you may have duplication of service. And that was my question. And at some point, the state does have a vested interest if you are regionalizing, And truly regionalizing around that's why other states build in protections to prevent duplication. So just to put out there.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And pro business services are not required? They are. Sorry, we were in suggested, not required. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if and when you move to a place where you would like business services or admin services to be run only through Seesaws, we would then have to amend all of the statutes where those responsibilities live elsewhere.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Hard to do that until they're set up.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Indeed. Right. It also could just be that if you contract for a specific, I mean, I'm trying to think of an example, but stranger things have happened. Someone could have a finance system at the CSO level that's doing all of their stuff, but then also trying to maintain local books, because we've had districts do that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And that might, if that is indeed where we're intending to move, that might be a helpful thing to put in the intent section. One thing that I'm sitting with and trying to figure out in the context of all this is if and when financial resources are saved by using the C Soft or by merging under our existing finance structure, that savings is generally in districts rolled into providing a new service rather than tax relief.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: that might If the foundation formula is sort of at a date certain, that might be a problem solved, but the problem that doesn't need solving. It might be a problem that doesn't need solving regardless if our goal is to improve services and opportunities only. But it's an interesting piece of the puzzle that I'm curious about. Wanted to name that.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah. Follow-up, Chuck? Yeah. So in other words, it wouldn't really reduce cost of the whole system, it would just make it able to serve our needs. And since one of the things we're talking about is maybe having the system cost less, that's going to be And if we do have

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the state certain in here where we are switching from an existing financing system to a new one, then that might be a problem that does not need solving. I don't know. Yeah, Jennifer?

[Rep. James Masland]: Yeah, one of the things that Rebecca set out, Representative Holcombe set out yesterday on steps necessary, I don't remember what your title was, heard you get that, putting out different financial systems in different schools. Would assessor help facilitate getting all the finance directors on the same page? Is that something that somebody might contract for?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would say that that is contemplated in the business and administrative services offering.

[Rep. James Masland]: Okay, thank you. Perfect clarification.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Keep going? Okay. That's the last Sorry,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: no. I do have a minor brainstorm, which maybe I shouldn't say out loud, but there is something about regional assessment districts and seesaws that's interesting.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I say a little

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: bit more about the conversation about But if you knew that 15,033 plus whatever inflationary piece would set you up now?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And all the categorical grants. But if

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: you knew that that is what you're going to be getting, and you know that you now just save, let's say $10,000 a year, I mean, not true, then you could say, well, aren't going to provide more, we're going to try to cut to get to 15,000, But if that's not explicit, there's no conversation about that, then we may end up, I don't know. Do we say, you know, just be aware that if you're heading toward foundation amount, be aware this is what it's going to look like, that foundation amount, and so consider what you wanna do with your savings as you move toward it. Do mean you say that?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't know, and I do, one thing that feels very clear to me through this whole process is that school business managers and superintendents are smarter than most of us here in the legislature at this stuff particularly. Maybe generally, but I mean, in the context of all this stuff. I don't know what that means for that, but that just feels clear to me on Friday afternoon. Yeah, I think that just want

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: to come back to what Charlie said a while ago, because I think the reason the Southeast one is so interesting is it was driven out of necessity, and what they're finding is more consistent service plans being able to actually get expertise to do consistent evaluations is actually lowering costs in the system progressively over time hit, which means we're going to have to reassess those numbers because they may look different. If we are successful with CSAS, we may address some of the structural challenges and the worksheets at the same time.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And the foundation formula is designed to be reassessed in Then the

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: maybe we need to say, we'd like to hear what your savings are each year, because otherwise how will we go in? It's, I think you've put I feel like I hear you saying your structure is bringing your costs down, and we're going to consider that moving forward then. I think that's what the key answer is the cost factor. Think, what I was saying is we're going have to reevaluate the numbers to help you build, But I think if we start asking districts to report every single fitting thing, it's giving them a hell of a lot of people work. It doesn't actually add value anymore. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And the formula is designed to be reevaluated every five years, not by legislators, but by experts. Experts who get somehow figured out in the data.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yes. Perfect.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good. Back to you, Beth. Off monthly.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Or not. Yeah, you might do.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: For Beth, Where you are right now, the only position that's contemplated in the CISA is the executive director.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the only requirement. So shall employ an executive director. It's silent as to whether or not there are other employees. But the bill, the language in current law and then amended in this bill, does allow for seesaw employees to be members of bargaining units and health care and teachers in municipal retirement. It does contemplate that there would be employees.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: So in the bargaining unit, which

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Which bargaining unit? In fact, why wouldn't they be one of your people not in the bargaining units? We have administrators, we have teachers, we have personal service contracts. I don't see that we can tell where to tell the school district. These

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would not be employees of the school district. Would be employees of the seesaw. And so all the law does is the statute that allows for teachers to bargain and for support staff to bargain, it inserts seesaw's employees in there as well. And then that is the end of my expertise on labor law. But the beauty of all of this is you have a seesaw that's up and running. So if you have questions about how the law is being executed, we don't have to guess. We actually have folks who can come in and talk to us about how they are doing it. Okay, so that was the last big substantive change in the Seesaw statutes. Everything else that I'm scrolling through is just the name change from BOCES to Seesaw. So you can see right here, Section six zero seven, employment. Seesaw shall be considered a public employer and may employ personnel, including educators, carry out the purposes and functions of the board. There's licensor requirements. They are eligible for teachers retirement system, municipal employees retirement system. There's your labor law references, and then health care. Yep. Section four. So section three is a repeal of a report back to you all. A report back required AOE to survey the field in 2028 and report back to you all on how many seesaws have formed, but that's

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: a moot point now because you have created them all.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section four is an amendment to the current startup grant program. So CSOs are eligible for a one time grant, startup grant. Current law is $10,000 This bill bumps it up to a $15,000 grant to be used by startup costs. AOE, there's a current appropriation of $70,000 I believe AOE still has $60,000 because there's only been one of theseCESA, and you have carry forward language in here. Then you're adding an extra $30,000 to account for the extra $5,000 you're adding to the base grant. And that is for startup costs. And so you're only calculating startup costs for six seesaws because one is already operational. And then what I'm about to scroll through are conforming amendments to everywhere else in the VSAs. We see the word BOCES or Boards of Educational Cooperative Services and changing that to Seesaw. So you can see there's quite a few places. Then we get to section 12 on page 25, line 16. Seesaw transition. Within thirty days following the passage of this act, each member SU board of each CESA created in section six zero three, subsection A, shall appoint a person to serve on the board of directors of the applicable CESA pursuant to what the law says. And then within forty five days following passage of the ZAC, the superintendent of the SU with the highest aggregate average daily membership of each seesaw calls the

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: first meeting. I love that particular detail for whatever reason. Just seems a lost to make a decision, and it was a well They suited pick a chair,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they elect other necessary officers, they're off to the races. Then we have this little bit of language here that says the articles of agreement of the VTLC in effect on 06/30/2026, shall serve as the operating agreement of VTLC unless and until amended, so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel and do anything differently now that you have mandated their existence. Okay. We're getting out of the Seesaw Reader Assistance heading, and we're going into Union School District Exploration Information, but Seesaws are still relevant. So on or before 10/01/2026, BTLC shall employ or contract for the services of seven union school district formation facilitators who shall be responsible for organizing and facilitating study committees to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. They're also supposed to hire one lead facilitator who, in addition to facilitating study committees as necessary, oversees those seven facilitators. Facilitators are required to have knowledge of and experience working in Vermont's public education system. And VTLC is required to assign one facilitator to each CSO membership region. So there are seven Seesaws, seven membership regions. So those facilitators would each be assigned to one Seesaw, and then you would have the one lead that's overseeing everything. Study committees. Two things have to happen on or before 12/01/2026. The first is that the facilitators form the study committees. And they do that by working within their assigned CSO member region, consulting with the school boards within that member region, using the criteria we're about to walk through, and using the suggested school district groupings contained in section 14 as guidance. So some of the criteria that the facilitators are supposed to take into account is that total average daily membership of the school districts forming a study committee shall be a minimum of 2,000 students as practical. School districts are required to be contiguous. And school districts on the same study committee may be members of different SUs.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: This is a spot where we might want to pull some of the original guidance to the Act seventy three task force in that is relevant to tax policy. My understanding is that that laundry list felt a little too long and so to be judicious with it. But we might need some of it to have our supplemental spending work.

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

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to pull that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: up now, or just I made a note of it. Okay. I also have a note of it. I just wanted

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to It

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: was too long. Yep. It was was not feasible. Okay,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the second thing that needs to happen on or before 12/01/2026, is that each study committee has to hold its first meeting. Subdivision two, notwithstanding any provisional law to the contrary, a school district is required to participate in the study committee it is assigned to by the facilitator.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: I don't want to go.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: You asked that yesterday. In

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my previous life, I worked in the enforcement side of things, and I would be happy to help you design some enforcement mechanism that you would like.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: The most basic ones would be met at the table. You're around the table.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a really good question. You're going to get a report back on sometime, I think, February 2027 with the membership of the study committees and the status of those study committees. So if you have a whole host of folks who are refusing to come to the table, maybe we'll be having this enforcement conversation next year. You either show up or you

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: pay the bill for this? Okay,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so you have to show up to the table, but this bill does not mandate any particular So a study committee form pursuant to this section is required to follow current law, Chapter 11, the Union School District Formation Exploration Process. And then under subdivision three is a series of requirements that either enhance Chapter 11 or deviate from Chapter 11. So a study committee formed pursuant to this section may identify necessary or advisable school districts, those are defined terms in chapter 11, that are not members of the study committee or are not members of the seesaw or both, and shall work with the applicable facilitator or facilitators to adjust study committee membership as necessary. Notwithstanding current law related to study committee budgets, a study committee And I should say, I hope it's clear, we use the term study committee when we're talking about summer study committees. This is an actual legal term in Chapter 11 and Title six table, a study committee to explore the exploration of a union school district. You want me to understand something about that? It

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: doesn't feel weighty, just as a word, but I think partly because we always making these legislative study committees, and sometimes they do things and sometimes they don't. We all have our own perspective on that. And I understand, is this a technical term in the context of education. So is your experience that it is also a very meaningful term to the field? And maybe that's a better question for Erin. I understand that it's part of It was a big part of Act 46. I understand it's a big part

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the statutes. Just My understanding is that the term So in 2022, you all overhauled this chapter. And my understanding is that when union school districts, the concept of them came online in the '60s, that was the term that they started with, that has carried through.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And I know you didn't walk in to be told on, but you did walk in.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Know you came out with your students. Yes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Do you mind answering that question?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I mostly defer to, you know, much counsel and the discussion did come up in our committee a little bit. And I, it seems like probably what you

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: call it doesn't matter so much as what

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it does. And so I think that's part of whole that's what's in law and what really matters is what's happening. Name, I think it feels, I don't know

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: the feel point, I can see how it feels one way. And again,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: this is from our community, but it's more what actually could be required and what could come of it, if it matters and the need. So, didn't really give up yet with them. And for the guilt, is it a meaningful term? I don't know if I can answer that. Okay, cool. Thanks. Back to you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're on page 28, line four, subdivision 3B. So notwithstanding current law related to study committee budgets, this bill says that the study committee formed pursuant to this section is gonna be funded through an appropriation you give them. And if they wanna spend more than that, then they can revert to current law and follow that process. Will you remind us that again? So both membership and how much you owe for the budget for the study committee is apportioned to each member school district on the study committee, the EDM. So proportional to your student count. Current law requires that if you're And the study committee comes up with the budget. They literally decide how much money they need to do their work. If that budget is less than $50,000 they can just make that decision, and they get the money they need from their member school districts. If it is more than $50,000 it has to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: go to the voters of the member school districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The general assembly is going to give you money and a facilitator. If you need more than the money, then you revert to current law. So if you decide that it's 25 ks, you wouldn't have to go to the voters.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And when you revert to current law, and let's say you wanted another $100,000 and it goes to a vote of a member districts, is it a separate ballot item? Is it just included in the regular look at this.

[Rep. James Masland]: Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the proposed budget established in section seven zero six of this chapter exceeds $50,000 then subject to provisions of that section, the board of each potentially participating school district warns the district voters to meet in an annual special school district meeting to vote on whether to appropriate the funds necessary to support the district's financial study committee costs. The meeting in each school district shall be warned for the same date. The warning in each school district shall contain an identical article in substantially the following form. There's the warning. If it is in the affirmative in two or more districts, then the boards of the affirming school district shall appoint a study committee consisting of the number of persons, yada yada yada. At least one current board member from each participating school district shall be appointed to the study committee.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And it's anticipated to be a special

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: meeting. It's

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: an annual or special meeting. I mean, a special meeting costs more than $50,000 sometimes. Okay. I think it might make sense to increase that limit a little bit.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 50,000? Yeah. I mean,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: every district kicking in next year is certainly not worth a whole bunch of people voting on if it's possible within their existing budget. There's a question of if they need to expand their existing budget, but most budgets have some room for extra meetings, administrative things. So

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: it just, yeah. I absolutely agree.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: And we're already seeding the study committees with $10,000 each.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and the facilitator.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: The facilitator, right.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will make a note, also noting, thank you.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Is that 10,000, is that envisioned to include all administrative support necessary for the Committed to Congress? What

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a great question. The honest answer is I don't know. However, current law requires the staff of the SUs to provide administrative assistance to the study committee and requires the secretary to cooperate and authorize agency staff to provide technical assistance.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: To the degree they have it available.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. I mean, that's not what the law says, but yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: There

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are many places within this timeline that one entity is responsible for doing something, and there could be a bottleneck. So this is one of those areas.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: They'll have legal fees also. I think there is a step we should revisit the language of the budget, because I think there's a separate one available for legal fees.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, budget. Moving to C. This is middle and regional high schools. So, in addition to everything they're supposed to study under current law, the study committees are also required to explore the advisability and feasibility of contemplated new unified union school district operating a regional, middle, or high schooler vote. And a regional, middle, or high school is not defined anywhere, so this says that a regional or middle a regional or or high school contemplated pursuant to the section shall offer resident students increased educational opportunities and access to CTE.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is it a high school district or a high school? It's the building.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the building. Okay, thank you. Now we're in Subdivision D, and Subdivision D is all about if school district finds If the study committee finds it advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district. Then they are required under current law to come up with a final report of proposed articles of agreement. They're still required to do that here. Their final report has to have some extra information in it, including an analysis of the educational advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the formation of the proposed Unified Union School District, the financial advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the formation of the proposed Unified Union School District, the likely operational and financial viability and sustainability of the proposed new Unified Union School District, and any other advantages or disadvantages of formation of the proposed Unified Union School District, including any advantages or disadvantages to the students and taxpayers of the region and the state. So that all needs to be So study committee says, yes, we're gonna go move ahead with the formation of a new unified union school district. They've got to come up with proposed articles of agreement. That's in section seven zero eight, the current law. And a final report that includes all of this analysis. If a study committee forms pursuant to this section, now subdivision E is about if a study committee determines that it is inadvisable to propose formation. Before the study committee dissolves, they are also required to prepare a report with the following details: the names of the school districts participating in the study committee and whether participation was formal or informal an analysis of the strengths and challenges of the current structures of all necessary and advisable school districts the reasons why formation of a new unified union school district would be inadvisable with specific references to any state law or rule the study committee found to be an impediment to the formation of a unified union school district with a specific analysis of why such ruler law was an impediment. And if the decision of the study committee was not unanimous, an analysis of the minority view outlining the ways in which the unified union school district would have promoted the state policy in section seven zero one of its charter.

[Rep. James Masland]: Yeah, could you go up just a little bit? The study will name the school districts that participated or didn't. What if people within that CESA area want to include some other people as participants? How do we accommodate that?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you have language that allows the facilitator to adjust study committee membership if once you get underway, you realize, Oh, this is impossible without you. And you agree that it's also impossible. However, there's also language that we haven't gotten to yet that says, if you get together and the facilitator is not willing to change membership, you can just dissolve and go on your merry way and form your own study committee with whatever Thank you

[Rep. James Masland]: you. That explains it.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan]: If

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: you don't form a thing and you have to write a report, it says what laws kept you from being able to do this. Is there a flip side, what laws would help, what you think would have helped if they didn't?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think this is meant to do both things. Yes. So this is the impediment, and we can certainly add language. I think the specific analysis of why the ruler law was an impediment was meant to get at the, this is what's holding us back, we can certainly put in

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a line there that asks for suggestions on how to change the law. I was thinking more like what would help in the future. Not what helped you back, but what would have moved you forward.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think in some ways, it has the potential to be the same thing.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Agreed. But

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we can certainly put that we could certainly add that. Yes. Making a note. And then at the end, there is a final report when this is all wrapped up from the lead facilitator. And it asks for specific feedback on certain issues of how they impacted. So you may also get feedback there. But made a note of the what would have moved you forward concept. Okay, so the study committee that determines it's inadvisable, on page 30 now, line five, it's inadvisable to form a union school district. They have to transmit that report to the boards of the participating school districts, the secretary, the state board, and the facilitator who's assisting them. And here's that language that says you can dissolve and go on your merry way. Members of a study committee that determines it is inadvisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district may form a new study committee and may pursue any union school district formation option available under Chapter 11 after the study committee members vote to dissolve the study committee form pursuant to the section. On or before 12/01/2027, all study committees are required to complete their final reports and transmit those final reports along with proposed articles of agreement as applicable to the school board of each school district that the report identifies as necessary or advisable if it was an advisable determination or to the participating school groups if it was an inadvisable determination. So, reports have to go to the school boards that were participating on the study. And then the school boards have until 02/01/2028, to complete their review and provide comments back to the study committee. This is a process that's in current law. We're just referencing it. Under current law, not referenced here, is the fact that the study committee has ownership over the report and the proposed articles of agreement. So they can get feedback from the school districts, but the school districts can't require them to change anything about the study committee report or proposed articles of agreement. The next step is secretary review. And this is the current process. If a study committee determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified school district, the study committee transmits the report and the proposed articles of agreement to the secretary. That's where current law stops. Current law does not give the secretary a timeline within which to turn around their review. This gives the secretary sixty days or until April 1, whatever comes first, from receipt of the report. And if that sixty day clock runs, or if you hit April 1, whatever comes first, and the secretary has not completed the review of the report and articles, then the study committee can transmit the report and proposed articles directly to the state board, which would then take action regardless of whether the secretary ever submits a recommendation. Currently, it's the secretary transmits those items to the state board with recommendations. So they only get to the state board after the secretary reviews them. State board findings. The state board is required to sign off on Unified Union School District formation

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: under current law. Do do anything other than that?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is a very interesting question that came up in education. And I'll show you the language. State board. Here's the process the state board has to go through. They have to consider the report and proposed articles for agreement and the secretary's recommendations. They have to provide the study committee an opportunity to be heard. They may ask the secretary or the study committee or both to make further investigation and may consider any other information the state board deems to be pertinent, and the state board may request that the study committee amend the report or the proposed articles of agreement or both. You'll notice there's nothing in there that makes it clear whether the study committee has to. And then if the state board finds that formation of the proposed union school district is in the best interest of the state, students, and the school districts, and aligns with the policy set forth in section seven zero one, then it shall approve the study committee's report and post articles of agreement and shall give notice of its action to the study committee. Here's what I think is really interesting, because I am a nerd and a lawyer and I don't have to execute this law. The chair of the study committee shall file a copy of the approved final report of proposed articles of agreement with each clerk of the school districts identified as necessary or advisable. Then when we get to the vote Let's see. The vote shall be held on the date specified in the final report. It doesn't say the approved final report. So I think there's a little bit of ambiguity there.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It would be hard if you don't know what exact timeline things are going to move on to even pick that date in your report if the report isn't going to two different places when it leaves you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's the current law, and the current law doesn't give you a prescribed timeline. Do we

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: need to add approved? It's not the decision, but I think that we need add the approved report. If it's not approved by the state board of education, can you really move forward? That's the question.

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

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It is

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not a legal question. It is not a legal This is all a process you made up.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay, so that's something we've put Yes. On, And

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: really the Ed Committee, I mean, we should check with them about it, because it's a little outside of our

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, For the sake of moving this conversation along, we're going to assume that the state board is going to approve things. State board has issued its findings that are required under current law, and we're giving them until 06/01/2028 to do that. It's six months from the final date of the report requirement, But there are other steps along the way before you get there. So this is another area, both the Secretary of View and the State Board, where there could be a bottleneck, depending on how many things get to the State Board and the Secretary. Next step in the process is the vote. If a study committee formed pursuant to the section determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district, the voters of each school district I would say, regardless of whether it was the intent of the education committee, but based on our conversation here and me processing this in real time, I would say this takes the ambiguity off the table for this particular process. If the study committee determines it's advisable, then the voters of each school district shall vote. If there is someone out there who has a different analysis of current law and whether you can move forward without the approval of the state board and there is a state board non approval here, then you could have a conflict without any notwithstanding language. So the votes all have to happen before on or before 11/07/2028. Study committee status report. On or before 02/01/2027, AOE, in consultation with the facilitators, is going to give you a report with the membership of each study committee and the status of each study. They will not have been working for very long at that point, but you would at least have membership.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Interesting that AOE is giving us the report and not the lead facilitator.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Policy choice. Guidance for study committee groupings. Facilitators shall use school district groupings contained in subdivisions one through 21 of the section as guidance when forming study committees. They can make different choices, choices that differ from the guidance, but they have to provide rationale for that. That would then be documented in a final report you all get. And then there are 21 groups. Bless you. Do you want to look at the membership that I need to figure out? Study committee results and analysis. Facilitator report. I am on page 36, line one. On or before 01/01/2029, the lead facilitator shall submit a written report to you all with the results of each study committee overseen by each facilitator and information regarding whether, and if so, how the following issues impact or influence the final outcome, along with recommendations for legislative action needed to remove identified barriers to the formation of new union school districts. Differences in staffing costs and costs associated with moving from several different collectively bargained agreements to one collectively bargained agreement. Differences in operating structures, geographic and topographic barriers. I don't know how you can come up with a solution to that. Enrollment patterns and projections, and any other factor the facilitator found to have influenced the final decision of a study. At the same time, AOE is required in consultation with the study committees and the state board to report back to you all with recommendations for supervisory union boundary adjustments and seesaw boundary adjustments to take into account the new union school districts formed or proposed to be formed pursuant to this act.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: Before you go on, in the previous page on section 15 about what is standing in their way, did the committee talk about the existing articles of agreement that supervisory unions have?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, those would not So the existing articles of agreement are not an issue legally because your two school districts are coming together and forming a brand new entity. And as part of that process, the two school districts would no longer exist and their articles of agreement would go poof. But the values and the policy choices each of those individual school districts have made that live in their articles of agreement will likely come to a head at the table as you are negotiating what your new articles of agreement are going to contain. But it would be an automatic if you vote to pursue a new school district and the voters agree with you. Those old articles of agreement go away.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe]: It would be the point at which one side decides we're not going to merge because you guys want us to close the school, we're not going

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to do that. Absolutely. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Nine minutes left, and so I'm just saying hello.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just have money left

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: and then contingencies.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And folks, we're gonna pick this up again on Monday, nine to twelve via Zoom. I know not everyone can make it for the whole night twelve. If you cannot make it from nine to twelve and you have not told me yet, please do send me an email over the weekend. If there are particular ways you think it would be helpful for us to organize testimony on Monday and Tuesday, which are essentially just more blocks of time with all the staff, please also let me know that over the weekend. Back to you, Beth. In the interest

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of time, I'm just gonna broadly talk about this. So there's a study committee reimbursement grant of $10,000 That's the study committee budget money. It's done in a reimbursement model. This concept is taken directly from Act 153

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: from 2010.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Invoices, you get one half at the time you submit your invoice and then one half when you complete your report. And it's a $10,000 limit for each study study. And then there's a $210,000 appropriation from the general fund to AOE for that. And that is simply 21 times 10. You may have more study committees than 21. You may have less study committees than 21. Facilitator appropriation, there's 442,000 appropriated from the general fund to the Vermont Learning Collaborative for hiring the facilitators. The seven facilitators and the one lead facilitator, and that includes $32,000 for administrative costs. And I believe VLCT has given an estimate of what they're budgeting for each facilitator, which is

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: how we arrived at that number.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Dollars 50,000 for the regular facilitators and 60 for the week. And then there's some, because you are appropriating to a non state government entity, some requirement that they report back to you and some accounting details. There's an executive director grant. So AOE gives each seesaw $50.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And we're probably gonna need to rearrange all of this with just different budget language.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: $50,000 to each seesaw that is not currently up and running to go towards hiring an executive director. Dollars 300,000 is 50 times six. And that's it for appropriations in this session. Section 18, I'm on page 39, line two, amends the effective date section in title in the section, section. In Act 73, it amends the contingencies for the foundation formula. So it bumps the contingent effective date from 07/01/2028 to 07/01/2030.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Just one year later than the bill has left the house last year, if anyone is tracking their timeline negotiations.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: changes the conditions. So new condition is that the clerk of each school district that votes on a proposal to form a new union school district on or before November 7 pursuant to this act has certified those results. Second contingency is current law, the 45A report. And then the last two contingencies are new. JFO provides an analysis, and then legislation has been enacted to address a whole host of pieces of the foundation formula, how

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to account for funding different things. Part of which is unrelentful whiteboard.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then pre K, you've got findings. You've got intent language. And you've got JFO hiring a contractor to do an analysis of pre K

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: within the We're going to spend some time on this section because I think the whole circle amongst committees started because we made a request. And so I want to make sure that the base of our request gets met somehow in that study. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to go into any more detail? Okay. And then that's it. 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Make more notes. Email the notes. And I'll see everyone on Monday, beside the computer,

[Rep. James Masland]: 9AM. Yep.