Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Ways and Means. Here we are. Age nine fifty five. Three ten on Thursday, April 9. Six days to tax day. We have mostly finished our language pending some edits from witnesses and final numbers. Even those final numbers will be placeholders because the implementation date on them is quite far out. And so we are going to end the day where perhaps we should have started a week ago, which is the fundamental question of which Representative Burkhardt posed, of can the foundation formula we have laid out and will certainly modify next year, without forced mergers. Discuss amongst yourselves. You

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: mean, can we move the

[James Masland (Member)]: foundation formula up? Oh, gosh, no.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think what yeah, I'll let you explain your question.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: So my question is, last year, we heard from the JFO a couple of different times that it would be potentially very detrimental to our additional to apply a foundation formula in our current district structure. Because when you are taking an amount of money, a large amount of money that's following a child, and you are talking about districts that are potentially small or for various reasons, it makes their funding very unstable. And that was part of the reason that we were trying to marry up the change in governance at the same time as the change in funding system. Because if you have a bigger district, there's a little bit more flexibility. Five children leaving or five children coming in doesn't have as big of an impact. And so I just got concerned yesterday when it I don't know why it took so long for the penny to drop, but it finally did, that really what's in the language in the bill now, there is no contingency effectively for district mergers to happen at the same time as the foundation formula. So what we're talking about is potentially applying the foundation formula to our current district structure. And my concern, I have a lot of concerns about it, but some of the biggest ones are for those smaller districts, as I said, that's going to make their funding very unstable. I'm worried about them being able to even cover their fixed costs, let alone the incremental costs of one or two more students, but really damaging opportunities for kids in those districts. I'm worried that if they want to merge with other districts, will other districts that maybe aren't as at risk want to merge with them? So that really has to be a two sided conversation. And so I worry about districts getting left out in the cold that are doing all the things we want them to do. They're raising their hand to say, yes, I want to consolidate with another district, but just being told no in those study committees. And I know that there are things built in. The study committees have to say why they find it not advisable, and that puts a little pressure on them to try to come together. But what I worry is that we are essentially using the foundation formula to force mergers. We're saying that we're not forcing mergers, but we are using it to basically put so much financial pressure on districts that they're going to find it impossible to operate without merging with someone. And I especially worry about the interim part where they're feeling that pressure and they have not yet been able to find a merger partner or been able to merge. And what happens in that interim period for the kids who are still in that district, who are losing opportunities? Does that cause families to move out of that district? Does it cause wealthier families to send their kids to private school, leaving only kids who don't have the means to do that in those districts? And how long do those kids lose out on opportunities before that district is essentially forcibly merged with another district? And so that's the concern that I think a lot of us have had that conversation in the background. I just wanted to air it before we take a big vote tomorrow on what we're doing here and make sure that we have that.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Higley?

[Mark Higley (Member)]: I think, Bridget, you've hit on the concern that the Governor has and has had all along, as far as creating those districts that are somewhat equal student population, right? Or what, 46,000, whatever those larger district numbers would work out to be, and then including the foundation formula. I think you've hit on how, in my opinion too, how difficult it's gonna be to have seven mandated CISOs with trying to create mergers within those CESAs that aren't necessarily going to happen. They don't have to, it's not mandatory. So again, that's what I find as well as far as going forward with all this. I don't see Is it all ending if we don't have enough mergers to move the foundation formula forward realistically, well that's my concern.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Yeah,

[James Masland (Member)]: thank you for bringing this up, and Mark, for your, Representative Higley, being a plumber here, for your comments. I'm just finding, not in the legislation being worked on per se, but what we've got from Joey Saunders, governor, there are a lot of backhanded ways of getting at things that many of us don't want to do, maybe he's coerced into it. I'm being a little sarcastic, a little cynical today, but that's the way I've been seeing it for a while. Talk about it later.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: And I don't know if the right answer is for the whole state. I know from my town, I hear nearly every weekend when I go home, Carolyn keep the choice for us. So Georgia hasn't had a high school for over two hundred years. We haven't, they have either sent their children out of town for education beyond eighth grade or where the kids haven't gotten it. I know some places find this difficult to believe, but for years and years, parents have transported their kid back and forth to high school, wherever they choose for that child to go, they transport, or they arrange for overnight care. So some kids occasionally go to St. Johnsbury Academy, or Kimbell Union in New Hampshire, A lot of kids go to South Burlington. In Burlington, those children come home every night. Bryce High School is very popular. I think that it will continue to be popular. A lot of French Canadian, Roman Catholic people in all of Franklin County. I don't know what the answer is. I am so sad that we have gotten to a point where our school costs are so high that people can't afford them. So that's the breaking point I guess isn't it? From where can't afford it, then you have to do something different. I hope that this will work out for everyone. Especially with kids,

[Carol Ode (Member)]: they're the future, aren't they? Teddy?

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I think that there is a lot of the points that Representative Burkhardt brought up, I also share a lot of those concerns.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Can you speak a little louder? Yes, of course.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: The point I represent is I share a lot of the concerns, and I think that if the goal where we are, to my chagrin, leaving this in a voluntary place as far as mergers, and I think that there's a million ways that this thing could go sideways, which is why I don't like it very much. But if we're going to move forward with a system of voluntary mergers, there are so many class and culture obstacles with getting districts to a point where they're going to want to merge. I think it would be a lot easier and a lot fairer for the districts, for us as the state to accept the responsibility and say, this is what the new districts are gonna be. This is how we're gonna do it because that's our job to make the hard decisions and point a path forward. But my community desperately needs the foundation formula. There are a lot of communities that will benefit, there will be some communities that don't benefit, and that's part of the trade off that we have to make every day in this building. And so I see that the nuclear option of having nobody do a voluntary merger, having We need that foundation formula piece at the end to make sure that when these study committees are doing their work, that they take seriously what the consequences will be if decide to suggest fetal mergers. I think that the foundation formula implementation is really the only stick that we have left in this piece of legislation to try and get folks to voluntarily consolidate. And it's an uncomfortable feeling. It feels threatening in a way, and I don't like that, which is why I think that we, the state, should be making these decisions for the districts. But if we're not going to do that, there needs to be a way to move forward, that's not the status quo, and I don't see another way in this bill to do that.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: I feel, like I heard from

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Burkhardt, she's going to the public. Thank you.

[James Masland (Member)]: She's applauding the Board of Education.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Oh, that's the Board of Education.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I really like sending social videos, Bridget clearly needed that today.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: You better go save her.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Think she's cut it. She's running away from care.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Thank you, Bridget. Thank you.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: When

[Carol Ode (Member)]: I listened to what Edward Teddy Waszazak, This foundation just passing this formula, it really does force mergers. Gonna just be an extremely stressful time schools. And so one thing they absolutely, this goes forward, one thing they absolutely are going to need is the numbers to show them what the numbers look at. And then, when you were saying, you know, small school, maybe it was three. Small district. Small district. It includes just 10 students. That's so much money. It's teacher and educational system or whatever. So I wonder whether they'll say, oh my gosh, we're now looking at numbers now, we need a little bit more time or we need more help or we need more people come in and help us do this. Help us get to a murdersome state.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And I know that you and Teddy worked together during the break to send some language to John that made sure that the numbers regarding the foundation formula when JFO finishes their analysis will be available for districts as they're doing the merger work. And I think that's an important piece of the puzzle so that they understand what's on other end of

[Carol Ode (Member)]: this. Anything, Charles?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I like the foundation formula in a lot of ways when we talk to our school districts about some of them. It's easier to manage to a number. But yeah, I recognize the concerns.

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: I'm not sure what to think of it, honestly, right now. It's a good red flag.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So I think we have choices before us. I mean, to some I don't mean this like we're making the choice right now. It's just from my perspective, I think many people around this table think that mandating the mergers would be a more effective path. That's not an available option in front of us right now. And so then the choice that's in front of us is, do we continue on? We know that tax incentives don't work. I've heard testimony over the years that there's sort of a desire to more clearly connect governance decisions to spending decisions. Certainly, the foundation formula does that. And so if a district was operating not at scale and they saw their foundation formula numbers, it would help really manage through those numbers and see the reality of the situation, the decisions that they had made. And some might make sense. Don't Representative Ode, you said something about things being uncomfortable. I think things are really uncomfortable right now. I think they're uncomfortable for kids. I think they're uncomfortable for school boards trying to pass budgets. Budget in my area just failed. Interestingly, in my area last night, a district voted affirmatively to close a small school and voted down that budget, which is an unusual combination. I don't have the backstory to share, is nice because of that information. But this seems like, to me, a really important This is transformative, long term work that we're doing. And I think there's I think we all have a desire to be able to go home to our constituents or talk to the media or tell the governor or whatever, like, yes, we have finished this work today. This is the plan. This is the next step. And it's multi year transformation. And so last year, we set a plan in place. We got significant feedback from the public about how they did not want to be forced into these situations yet. And we are continuing to move the rest of the work forward because we know that a lot needs to change, because The status quo was not okay. And I think next year, we'll have more information, and we'll have made more of these decisions, because we'll have more of the pieces that we put in place in this bill. And then we'll be able to continue to refine the work to get clear on what the exact numbers are and what the impact might be, and be able to tweak it from there as we go. But I don't I can't, in good conscience, do not do something significant this year. And I think just putting forward the voluntary mergers without the foundation formula on the other end of it is not setting a clear vision for what comes next.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Chip? Or, Winnie, actually.

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: Well, I think we're all concerned with the cost of our schools. We're all getting older. We know that. Population is

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Can you speak up a little bit?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: For everyone, not just you.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Speak it

[Mark Higley (Member)]: for yourself, you can keep that heritage. It's not getting older.

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: And our population is older, fixed incomes, they can't afford property taxes, we've all heard. I guess I'm concerned whether this is really going to help. And by trade, I'm not an optimist. I just have some reservations with all the costs that we're looking at, whether it be construction costs or the costs of transformation. I have to wonder whether, in the end, whether we'll succeed. And I do hope we do. I also have issues with my community. It's a rural community. With the transformation, Are the students in my community going to be getting the same education that we're all paying for right now as someplace like Woodstock or Burlington? You know, it just I have concerns like everybody does. And I don't think by doing forced mergers it's going to happen. I think in the long run, schools will probably see what's facing them and will do it on their own without being forced to do

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Chittenden. In the face of Can I just ask a clarifying In the face of voluntary mergers, which I see why they make sense, do you see the foundation formula as a way for the kids in your district to get the kinds of opportunities that are available to other kids in the state right now?

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: I hope so. Okay.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I've been thinking about the whole package, and I was doubting Thomas about the effectiveness of CISOs from a financial standpoint. But if, in fact, we're looking at efficiencies and also improved services to students across the state through this organization of 7,000 people, that can, if managed properly, really lower costs and improve those services. So I'm hopeful about that. I'm optimistic about that. The question I always have is what is the intersection of the foundation formula with those CISOs? And that gives it that scale to kind of insulate somebody from a few students moving out of a school district to make sure that doesn't negatively affect them. So I think we can leverage those CISAs once they're really up and running to achieve the kind of transformation we've been talking about. It's really not that different, if you think about it, kind of, sort of, from what the governor asked for. I need fewer school districts. Well, they're not districts, they're CISAs. They're consolidating services, and they're going to bring them to every school district so students can have more opportunities. I think that's pretty cool. What we're doing with school construction in here, to me, not just for my community, is a great carrot. So hopefully, we can invest in those new buildings. The thing about the liabilities, we were talking about this over lunch. You might not want to merge with a school that has a lot of debt, whereas you might not want to merge with another school that hasn't done anything to the building forty years and is falling apart. Either both of them have liabilities. So it's not just that there's a debt, there's also undepreciated debt. So, hopefully, I'm hopeful that we can actually make this go through and lower our costs, improve our education, and have a more predictable system over the long

[Mark Higley (Member)]: So again, I know we're a separate body from the other body. But I think it's important. I mean, hate to see us do the amount of work that we're doing and, you know, having a strike all amendment, you know, when it gets over to the Senate and be right back here again, passion over, you know, what the huge difference is. And then again, you've the government pretty firmly what he's looking for. Does that mean? That mean you're to be

[Carol Ode (Member)]: here until June or whatever.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Don't say it, Mark.

[Mark Higley (Member)]: I'm sorry?

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Don't say it.

[Mark Higley (Member)]: Well, know. I already said I have a construction season coming up.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: We have a job.

[Mark Higley (Member)]: But anyway, that's again, just to throw that out there. We're the house and we need to do what we need to do, I guess. But it's still, I think it's too yanked up because again, I'm hearing that things could change when it goes to the Senate.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think things will definitely, I mean, everything changes when it gets to the Senate, right? And particularly education policy. I do know that they, the work that's happened in the Senate thus far on this issue has been really focused on the shape of voluntary mergers. They have not been talking about mandatory mergers. They've been talking about voluntary mergers. And the shape of the districts are very different. But those committees have not done work on really all that is in our language at all. And so it does feel like whether they take it or leave it, we are offering a contribution that will at least be taken into account. And yes, of course, I'm sure the committee of conference will be a challenge again this year with a third party at the table as well. One thing I want to flag that you said, Charlie, well is CISAs as a path to cost savings is huge. And I think one of the pieces that we've talked a little bit about before and haven't been able We can't see the savings in things like this in the same way with CISAs as they exist now, with Act 46 mergers, because those resources are rolled back into the district where it started, rather than having those savings be spread more broadly around the state. And I think one of the things that's interesting about connecting the CISAs to the foundation formula is it'll create more equitable opportunities and stabilization for taxpayers in a way that wouldn't happen if we adjusted CISAs and the current finance system, for whatever that's worth. Yeah, Jim?

[James Masland (Member)]: A couple of things. One is, for starters, Teddy, I disagree completely that we should have forced mergers, that this this body should decide boundaries. I think we would do so absolutely at our peril, pay for it for as long as we could possibly pay for it. But that said, I have considerable faith in insistence and voluntary trying to figure it out as best we can, and I think we need local people, local regional people at the table when those decisions are negotiated and work their way through, I think barring that, again, go forward as our, and I would say we can no longer tread water, we'll all drown, we're in process of drowning right now anyway, sinker swim is kind of trite, but we have to work our way forward. I will be lucky if I come back next year. My porters are gonna be in considerable stress. Maybe full time's sake, they'll send me back for one more time so we can finish our work here. Cause there'll be more work to do. We know, you know, this is gonna be tough, or

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: whatever it is.

[James Masland (Member)]: And someone I was talking to many years ago said our obligation is to be informed and fair. I mean, that's basically the way I try to do my job, to be informed and fair, and as we all recognize here, there are so many moving parts. I was talking to someone in the cafeteria this morning about the aspect that we get locked into the language in one provision or something, and we try to negotiate our way out of that. There's these things over here on the side, but wait, wait, wait, stop.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And I appreciate that Rebecca consistently brings us to sort of not forget about the things on the outer ring. So, I

[James Masland (Member)]: mean, I don't have an endpoint to this comment except that this is difficult stuff and

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: all the end of here,

[James Masland (Member)]: I appreciate everybody in this committee, how hard we're working together to try to figure out an answer. We play our different roles here on different bills depending on the order of the day, you know, kind of stuff. But as I played back a little while ago, there are a lot of things that I don't like. But we can't tread water and so we're basically obligated to take our best shot and see, well, this will, we think this will work better than the other things that we've talked about. I mean, I'm not really enthusiastic, I'm generally not enthusiastic about the foundation formula which is based on region by region. What if you change the region's boundaries? Would you get a different result for the amount?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Well, yeah, I mean, it's based on the students in that region.

[James Masland (Member)]: I understand, but there are different ways to construct the model and get a little bit different result. It's not our job right here to talk about that, but at least not today. We hear, I'm going on. Thank you very much. A

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: lot of discussion about the voluntary mergers, as Mark pointed out, but from the other body that the first thing they're offering is a two year south landing with voluntary mergers. Sorry, Teddy. I mean, that's What What does that mean? I'm not sure what that means.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: I don't know what the soft landing.

[James Masland (Member)]: What's your

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure what that means. It was first The soft landing. First offered up. Yeah. Was a soft landing, two years of voluntary merger before the Oh, before the axe comes down. Yeah. Oh.

[James Masland (Member)]: The other floor amendment where it's like a stop to make a soft amendment, which will get rejected, but I we have no obligation to pay to make a statement on behalf of my district. So we'll get to that at Monday.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Okay, sure. Well, this would be anybody, a fun thing about Act sixteen sixty eight is, as we ask schools to do more, when they have to come figure out how they're gonna pay for it, they get to set their budgets, the voters vote, and then we need to raise the money so that they do all the kinds of things. Because of something. Patient asks them to do and all the examiners ask them to do and then we ask them to do, the federal government asks them to do, all of the good ideas that come from outside of their ability to control, and so, but under Act 6,068, we do fund what they're doing, whether we think that they're too big or smaller, whatever, I they like what Charlie said, I like to be positive and think what's key to this, but we can not underfund this formula, like period. And I almost want to cry and say, we will, But I mean, so I would have to say, maybe we need in here to make me feel happy, something was said, for every law that is passed at the state or federal level, we have to fully fund the additional five school districts. We have the foundation equal opportunity payment, we have a way that that's going to increase with inflation, kind of a way that ends up being, but the additional mandates has to be fully funded.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Carol, I wanna respond to what you said about Act 60, because I think Act 60 is, and I know that not everyone thinks this, and certainly our constituents who still wish it had never passed in the first place, and I'm sure everyone here does. But as it was conceived, I think it is a beautiful thing. I think it's an incredible opportunity for equity. I think it's an incredible opportunity for local control. I think it's so incredible that the folks who put it together managed to marry those two things as elegantly as they did. And it is absolutely not working. And so that's And I think it worked better than the law that was before it for a long time. And it's just fundamentally not working anymore. And I think that's really sad because I think there's so much in it that really lives up to our values here in Vermont. And I think this is sort of the next opportunity to take the elegance of the statewide grand list and bring it to the next level of a consistent statewide grand list. A grand list where folks pay more according to use of the land and ability to really how our property tax code has evolved, and make sure that kids, no matter how those voters in that district feel about taxes, still get an opportunity to learn. And that feels to me like the next evolved stage. I am not It's terrifying. I do not know if this is gonna work, and I'm glad sometimes I'm glad that every year we get to come and tinker and do the next step. And some years, I don't really trust the next tinkerer. It's I think that's why some people stay here for a very long time, because you don't trust the next year's tinkerer and you want to hang out and protect against it. Think we have to do And it feels really uncomfortable to move forward with the next step that's not complete, but there's no way to complete this in a single year. That is just the nature of the scale of the work we're doing right now. Yeah, Teddy?

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Two things. One is per what you just said, Madam Chair, about the inherent good that was behind the design of Act 60. I was actually talking with representative Kimbell about this earlier of the pre Act 60 funding formula was in place for a little bit over thirty years. We're about thirty years past Act 60. And I think much like our state and federal constitutions, the world changes and we have to change the systems of government and systems of funding to reflect those changes. And so, wide scale, large systemic change is a good and necessary part of what government is supposed to do and we should have fierce debate and arguments about what that should look like. And then the second thing on the merger piece is I don't think that the state should be deciding what the merger should be, because I think that we have some magical wisdom that no one else has or that we have the silver bullet. My worry with the voluntary merger system is that we're passing these really hard decisions from the resourced apparatus of state government to less resourced school boards, administrators, and communities. And we're saying, no, we want mergers, we want consolidation, but we don't wanna be the ones to make the hard decisions, you guys have to do it. That's my problem with the voluntary merger system. Not that I think that I or any one person have all the answers. It's part of our jobs to make really hard decisions, sometimes unpopular decisions for the betterment of our communities and of our state. I worry that the voluntary merger system laid out nine fifty five with all due respect to the House Education Committee passes the buck on that responsibility because we're afraid of what people might say about it. And there are pros and cons to mergers, mandatory or otherwise, but that's where my frustration comes from. Not because I think I or anyone else have all the answers and what the merger should or should not be and what district should or should not be. I just think we're throwing a grenade into some of our communities across the state, and we don't know what's going to come of that, but we're saying, This is what we're doing, now you guys figure out how to do it.

[James Masland (Member)]: And that does not feel comfortable.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And in the absence of forced mergers, do you think that the next best thing is still to move forward with the foundation formulas? Yes. Professor Branagan, I think you wanted to say something about it.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: I wanted to say the other half of what Teddy was talking about, and that's that the world is changing. Downstairs, the guys from Efficiency Vermont have been there all day. Of those men They're dryer balls. Is my constituent. And I was talking with him and his wife is just the sweetest lady you would ever meet, dear and small, and she's a third grade teacher. And she came home the other day with a huge bruise on the front of her leg because a child had kicked her in the shin. And she didn't report it, she didn't do anything, she just continued on with her day. I know my grandchildren come home, my daughter tells me, and ask her what a different four letter words mean. These are words they never hear anyone say, except at school. And I mean, the world is changing. I don't know what to do about that. I feel a lot of times like society is falling apart. Kids don't get adequate parenting at home or do they even go to church? I was going to say or at church, but I most don't go. So what? I don't know so what, but

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I certainly don't go.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: You turned out all right. What I'm saying is the world is falling apart. It's bits and pieces, and how can you pick this up?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Certainly, we're not going to do it all in this room in this bill, and I do think that a few too many hopes have been pinned on a single piece of legislation by all of us, you

[Carol Ode (Member)]: know? Yeah, Carolyn. I just listened to the thoughtful discussions we've had. They're really coming together on so many things that this legislative body does. I keep track on the floor, almost every bill that passes out of committee is unanimous. Pay attention to it. And almost everything that we vote on before is a unanimous vote. Now don't start just saying no, to be funny, but

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Somebody gets up and yells, Point more!

[Carol Ode (Member)]: And scared. But truly, truly, I just, I also hope here is that instead of leaving this body destroyed, they're not doing this, he's not doing that at each other. Think my mother should be so happy to hear positive stuff about, well, I can understand where you're coming from, you started out saying we needed this, couldn't quite get that because people here are very close representatives, only represent 4,000, or in a double district, 8,000 people, it's very close people. And so, we're reacting to what they're telling us, and so this might just be as fast as we can go, and as we see the discomfort, and maybe we may have to pour some resources toward the study committees and CISAs so that they have more help getting where they need to go. And so, I just hope we could speak as positively and kindly outside this building, that would really reflect what's going on inside this building, which is a lot of positive stuff. I also wonder if when we go over to the Senate, the new bill, Whatever, that maybe we should all on this committee go and sit around. But really, I was thinking, because rooms are big and tall, they're small. On that note, no, I'm serious because all this stuff that's all interrelated, timelines and everything else, rather than just slashing through it, is to just say, well, why don't we work with you so you really get how this thing is put together? And don't slash it, just say, okay, we're gonna work from this document. And if you wanna change

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a phrase here, take out a paragraph, like, don't. Please add a comma, we don't have enough comments.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Do this. Don't just slash it.

[Mark Higley (Member)]: I've heard your name's brought up for a conference committee case for me.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Okay.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, sorry, go ahead.

[Woodman "Woody" Page (Member)]: You made a comment about underfunding in education. I'd like to know, has the state underfunded our educational system through the years? And if the answer is yes, then maybe we all should be I'm going to get killed for this. Maybe we all should be paying more for our education system, whether it be property taxes or some other manner.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So guess what I'd So before the foundation I hope

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: my heart is coming

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: for you. Before I am.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Appreciate that. I think we've all switched sides multiple. I mean, I don't know. I feel like I've switched sides multiple times in the last year. Before Act 60, that's why the Brigham decision happened, because we are significantly underfunding schools in certain areas of the state. And I think there's a huge amount of evidence that right now, we are significantly underfunding schools in some areas of the state, Slate Valley and Barrie being two very specific ones. And I think that's one of the essential reasons why we're here.

[Carol Ode (Member)]: What I was meaning also is when we ask the education fund to take on what in other states is coming from a general fund, like let's say it's mental health services, then it looks like education spending is out of control. But what we're doing is we're just asking fund to do more and more and more. And because we're asking our schools to do more and more. And going into what you were talking about, kids who come in who are not in good shape, they need help.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: My hope with the way we structured the foundation formula and the good work we did last year and the good work we're doing this year is that by keeping supplemental district spending at a very low ratio and the way it's raised, we are actually keeping the system that we're setting up from getting more and more and more inequitable as any education funding system tends to do across time. And we're creating more of an incentive for the legislators who represent this very small number of people to protect the sum in the foundation formula from too much messing with, as we are won't to do. This seems like a good spot to stop for the day. Thank you, everyone. We're back here tomorrow at nine As far as I understand it, the language that we're going to look at tomorrow is going have some tiny tweaks from today. But we are done making substantive. And