Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to order? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. As, I indicated to the body earlier today, at this point, having had a walk through of age four fifty four and our caucus of the whole, we're ready for the, more formal debate. So I would move that the senate's rules be suspended in order to take up age four fifty four, act an relating to transforming Vermont's education governance quality and finance systems for immediate action.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Chittenden is moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to take up h four fifty four for immediate action. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The motion carries.

[Senator Samuel Douglass (Orleans)]: Wow.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Age four fifty four, an act relating to transforming Vermont's education governance, quality, and finance system. The committee of conference has submitted the report and is it is found in today's calendar. The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? Senator From Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Thank you, mister president. As noted this morning in the caucus of the whole, the actual bill that is in front of us today, the conference committee report, is very similar to what passed out of the senate with a handful of changes that were discussed by legislative council at the time. I'm not going to go into section by section. And although I have the first thirty three secondtions incidentally, the senator from Caledonia has sections 34 through 50, and the senator from Washington begins with section 50 one(two), whatever the end is. But I just have a few comments to make that I hope for instead. I wanted to step back a little bit from the conference committee report and remind us or talk again a little bit about what we're actually trying to accomplish here. Following the Brigham decision of 1996, act 60 and then act 68 were good faith attempts to provide the substantially equal educational opportunities for all Vermont children required by the court. Until the Brigham decision, we had a system under which property wealthy towns could provide dollars to educate their children with little effort, while towns with less property wealth had to make a significantly greater financial effort to raise far less money and with us unable to adequately provide for the needs of their children. That system had to go. Thank God it did. The education financing system developed by acts sixty and sixty eight closed that gap and for a time seemed to work. But mister president, the current system has some fatal flaws. First, it is focused on equalizing tax capacity rather than educational opportunity. Second, it is so Byzantine that virtually nobody understands how it works. And when voting under school budgets, Vermonters don't know when doing so what effect their votes will have on their property taxes. Third and most profoundly, there's a degree to which nobody is responsible. In the end, budgets are voted all over Vermont and then the legislature is given one big number. Yes. There are some levers we can pull, and there's a third pot of money that we can use to help pull down the the total cost. But fundamentally, the legislature with the yield bill simply sets the multiplier to raise the money. That's our obligation in a way that's almost the extent of our obligation under the current system. So in a way, again, nobody is responsible. And that is coming through, and that's what went in part to the tax revolt of two thousand twenty four. And finally, even the desired benefits of act 60 and act 68 are coming unglued. Because voters have raised budgets for all kinds of reasons for legitimate, property taxes have reached a level many Vermonters consider unsustainable. As a result, voters in poorer districts vote down their school budgets even when, even though, because of the ultimately statewide decision making process, one big pot of money, they don't save money by doing so, thus depriving students of the equal opportunity sought by Act sixty and sixty eight. Conversely, high spending districts can do the same thing and visit the effects of those of that high spending on other parts of the state. This year, following the our '2 thousand twenty four property tax revolt, we've entered an era of uneven programmatic cuts in some areas and further increases in others. If our system remains static with 52 supervisory units and a 119 school districts, combined with out of control health care costs, although we took some real steps on that front this year, thank you to the health care committee, the effects of poverty, student mental health crisis, and other cost drivers, it is unsustainable. We need to seize the moment to stop the bleeding and create a framework for us to to get to the goal of excellent educational opportunity for every Vermont child And substantially and permanently bend the cost curve so Vermonters can afford to continue to fund the system. We need to do it in a way that actually improves opportunity for kids. And again, we need to make sure somebody is actually responsible. With the conference committee's report, money to fund the system will be raised across the state from the uniform basis and distributed on a per pupil basis weighted basis to each district. The system is designed so that, at least in theory, voters don't even have to vote under school budgets. They'll simply receive their weighted student allocation. But there's something else really critical going on here. The system we are putting in place fulfills the promise of Brigham. We have devolved to a place where we have a two to one disparity in educational spending between the highest spenders and the lowest spenders in Vermont. The current system no longer works. We have to remember that. This bill takes opportunity for school children across Vermont from this to this. The ability to improve educational opportunities comes from making the system predictable and sustainable. Which is in itself huge. Moving to larger governance units, thus creating the opportunity for back end efficiency, greater opportunities for shared and more specialized services for kids, the ability to provide after school and summer programs for children in poorer districts, and to properly scale the delivery system. And I will note that even as we talk about that properly scaled delivery system, we have tempered, and I give the, senator from Addison a lot of credit for coming up with this, section of the bill, tempered, the class size requirement. So the bill in the end achieves transparency with a fixed amount and a much simpler homestead exemption that people can understand. Mister president, there's always a reason to vote no, but I would ask those considering a no vote to ask themselves what the alternative is. The status quo, that's not acceptable. Finally, although I add although I will add that we ended up, presenting this body with significant changes to the administration's proposal, I think it's important to recognize that the governor put a stake in the ground for transforming our educational system. We end up with the same intent and with the same pillars of delivering excellent educational opportunities for every Vermont child within a financially sustainable framework, although we do it differently. He could have frankly tried to employ some blunt instrument that might have held down costs but would have caused chaos and destruction. By the way, there is fear that if we don't pass this bill and set this system in motion, that's what will come to pass. What we put in front of this body today is thoughtful, produces a sustainable framework, and gives districts several years of incremental but steady transformation. The alternative is true chaos. Absent action, voters will take immediate acts to budgets and kids will be harmed. I have no doubt that despite our best efforts, we haven't come up with a perfect bill. But I also have no doubt that it's a marked improvement over the Brigham Brigham non compliant, dramatically non compliant status quo. Our goal should not be to deliver an adequate education, the term of our adequate education. I hate that term. Our goal should be to live to deliver excellent educational opportunity for every Vermont child. This is a critical first step. We have a lot of work to do, and it really is, of course, only the first step. We have a lot of work to do over the next two, three, four years. The maps, the wards, the waiting studies that are contained within this bill and then figuring out how to implement them. We need to reform the system for how kids have access to CTEs. We all know the story that districts are not always interested in having kids go to their CTEs because it actually costs money. We need to fix that system. We need to make CTEs the deeply integral part of the system that they need to be to provide kids that kind of opportunity they deserve. And as we do all of this, and I just wanna emphasize this for the body and I think it's where we all want to be, we need to make sure that as we're doing this, we make it translate to excellent educational opportunity for every Vermont child. And, mister president, with that, because we I had a whole section by section list since for my part, but since we've done that, I'm not gonna do that. In fact, I will turn it over to the senator from Caledonia, who has those middle sections and so in case he has a few comments to make.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Bennington yields to the senator from Caledonia, but before you start, senator from Caledonia, I would remind everyone in the audience that phones need to be off. Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. My already brief remarks, I'll make them even briefer after the explanation we had this morning from legislative council and senator Bongard touched on many parts of of my sections. Basically what we're doing here is we are moving to a foundation system and every child in the state of Vermont will receive the same amount of support from the state of Vermont and that base amount starting in we'll start in FY '29 and the amount is 15,033 in FY $25 so it will be inflated and weights will be added to that that base and what's called the weighted long term membership and the number of weighted students times the base will determine how much money a district receives. Each district will have the opportunity for 5% additional spending. It'll actually start at 10% in '29 and then it will come down to 5% of the base if that district chooses to do that. If they do that, they will receive an extra rate that is based on a yield system. The new weights that we will use in the state of Vermont starting in FY twenty nine, for a pre k student, they would be weighted at a 0.46. English language learners, our commitment to them is for the level one, which is the most intensive services. They would receive 2.11, level two or three would receive 1.41, level four one point two, and level five and level six would be 0.12. And we have a new category called SLIPE, which stands for students with limited or interrupted formal education. These are mostly, for children that are new to our country and they require additional support to catch up because they have not had the opportunity for formal education they will receive a point four two eighty. We will also move from a census block grant to assigning weights to children that require special education based on disability in three categories with the least intensive category being 0.79 and the most intensive category being 2.49 And for our students that come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, they will be weighted at 1.02. We also have grants in here for schools that are less than a 100 students and small by necessity, and also for schools that are in sparse areas of the state. Our small schools would receive a grant of $3,157. That will also inflate by NIFA, the inflation index every year, and our sparse schools would receive $19.54 per student, and that would also, inflate every year. Within the bill, there is valid language for supplemental district spending. The EOP, the the big chunk of money that the districts receive, they will receive that. They will not have to have a a local vote to receive that money. They will just receive that money. Any additional monies that supplemental district spending, generates will flow to the bottom line, and they will be used for tax relief next year. H four fifty four asked for several reports, regarding pre education, transportation, CCFAP, and other early care learning sets learning systems, and those reports are due at the end of this year. H4504 does provide a transition for the amounts of money that districts will receive relative to what they currently receive and for the tax rates that homestead property owners in those districts receive relative to what they receive today and that will be a linear transition that will take five years with a full will be full in by 2033. And, moving right along. We this will also, we will move to a three classifications of our grand list instead

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: of two.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: The senior center from Washington will go into greater detail about this, but instead of having a non homestead rate and a homestead rate, we will move towards a non homestead rate, a non homestead non residential rate which is second homes and a non homestead not I'm sorry non homestead residential which is second homes and non homestead non residential which is all other non homestead property and there are a few different things that will have to happen for that to to move into place. In the event that in a future legislature does not approve, the monies that are to to full fund the educational opportunity payments and supplemental districts district spending, the default rate of a 110% of the pre previous year will be applied so that there will be money there for the kiddos. There'll probably be more money and that extra money would just go to the bottom line, but I'm sure a future legislature would never never do that. And that concludes my portions of the bill. I hope that between, John Gray this morning and the fiscal note, if you've had a chance to read it, it really is excellent. My I don't know who exactly the j f was it, Julia. It's this is really, a great thing to take back to your your constituents. This is it really is quite excellent. And with that being said, I'll, I'll yield to the senior member from Washington.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Caledonia yields to the senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I think starting out, I'd like to say that forefront in all of our minds is making sure that every child in Vermont has equal access to an excellent education. Right now, some children do and some children don't, and it is generally based on the financial wealth of your community. Our goal is to even that out and make sure that every child has the same access. I know there was concern with the spreadsheet the last day of the session, and I think if you really wanna know what this bill does, read the intent section. But on my copy, it's page five, it says, it is further the intent of the general assembly to ensure that the imposition of the new statewide education tax rate contemplated by this act does not result in an increase of education property tax bills relative to Vermont's current education funding system for municipalities. So we are saying going in, we are not going to be you I've got districts that were looking at a 30% increase. We're not gonna do that. We haven't until we know who they are and what the system is, we don't have to work out a solution, but we will. The tax sections are fairly easy because taxes are numbers. We will be going to an educational opportunity, which is the base plus the weight. We have tiered weights, small and sparse schools we've been over, and they're 5% additional spending. There is a yield on that additional spending based on the town with the lowest property wealth. So you've heard something about recapture until we know if property wealthy towns who will pay more because they will be paying on a on a lower property value or yield, that should cover the spending on the lower property yield towns or districts at this point. Until we get there, we aren't gonna know who's gonna vote what. So any additional will first go to keep the funds solvent. If there is extra money, the original bill called for it to go to state at for building and school construction. The decision has been until we know what's happening and until we see how all the numbers work out once we establish districts that that money will fall to the bottom line and be able to be used to reduce taxes in the next year. Let's see. We have gone to a new homestead deduction system. Other than no one seems to understand our present income sensitivity, it has drawbacks. We saw that generally, if you're looking at a 34% increase, things smooth out over time with income sensitivity. When we got to the 18% increase of last year, we found out because income sensitivity is based on last year's property tax bill and last year's income, people were not going to get the help they needed to pay the 18% increase until the next year, and we made some accommodations to prevent that. We basically raised some funding. But it points out some of the drawbacks to the present system other than no one understands it. So we have gone to, and I both bills went to, going to a homestead exemption based on your income. So as your income goes up, the percentage of your homestead value you can deduct goes down. I know the senate finance committee, I think we had six or seven charts with blue lines, and we have landed on the chart that seems to do the most for the lower moderate income and the lower middle income people. And there is a study and with a cap of 425,000, of home value. There is a study looking at moving that income up because we've heard several times now that it costs somewhere around $160,000 a year to be comfortably middle class in this state. And so the tax department will be looking at this. As you see okay. We've talked about there are three tax categories. That number's bounced around, but it's landed on three. Right now, we have two, homestead, non homestead. This breaks it out to homestead, non homestead residential, and non homestead everything else, which is basically commercial and apartment rentals. And the tax department will be coming back to us with a study. Right now, they're all being taxed the same with the same rate, and that will be what's needed to raise the EOP payments. But we have long talked about dividing that up. We have long we started with Act 60 charging a slightly higher rate to non homestead. They have, over time, I think now in most places, crossed, and the non homestead is paying a lower rate. We've known we needed to adjust that for several years. This will give us the opportunity to look at adjusting that, to look at what is out there in the way of second home property values, to look at what kind of rates it might take to raise enough money. The bill envisions using that money. There was some concern that we could just see, well, it's not us, so we could just tax them into oblivion. This bill envisions using any extra revenue that a future legislature decides to raise to either lowering the tax rates overall, your tax bills we're talking about, because there's a lot of discussion about whether or not in some of our poorer towns, especially that homestead exemption, could end up, you know, free actually lowering tax bills for many of its residents. So we need time to be able to chart that once we get a little further along in this process. But this bill envisions using it either to lower the tax rates or to cover the cost of the homestead exemption. When you exempt somebody from paying a portion of the bill, everybody else the tax rate goes up to cover that cost because the bills gotta be covered. If we cover that cost with another revenue source, then that results in everybody's tax rate going down an equal amount. So either way, that revenue would be limited to lowering property tax bills. And we do have part of the last minute compromises is that if we don't do this, I believe, by 2028, if we don't make any take any action, then the classifications go away and we're back to one, or maybe we could go back to two, which is what we have. But so we have a limited time to work through this, but it will give us time, and it will give the tax department time. They're still struggling because these are year round properties struggling to define exactly what is a non year round property and how do you also deal properties? I think those are the highlights for the tax section. We will be able to do a much better financial projection once we get an idea of what the districts will look like. We'll know what the grand list mix is in those districts, and then we'll be able to calculate on a cost basis both the the base that is necessary, and we are covering a 100%. I think we're the only state in the country that's doing this. Most of them are at 70 or 80%. The question about why do the the fallback tax rate at a 110. If we don't, well, I remember a number of years ago, I assume during the Great Recession, that the state of Pennsylvania legislature couldn't come to an agreement and therefore did not allocate money for schools, and the schools were left with borrowing. And so having what is a slightly painful increase out there will encourage us to perhaps make painful decisions in the future and not make sure that the children get dealt with first. I think that's it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Point of order, mister president. Pursuant to Mason's rule seventy seven one two, I believe the report of the committee of conference is objectionable because the committee of conference has not confined itself to the differences in opinion between the house and senate versions of the bill. There's a lot of instances in this 115 page bill where I saw that, but the particular ones that stood out to me were the deletion of section 11, which was in both the as passed the house and senate proposal of amendments. Also, the movement of the extra money that is raised going to the school construction fund, is now going to buy down taxes. The school construction fund was agreed upon between the House and the Senate. Also in section 22 28 a, the tuition rules that can be found on page 55, these were not found in either bill, the house as passed the house or the senate proposal of amendment. In addition, the 5%, supplemental district spending in 46 a doesn't appear in either bill, but is here now. And on oh, no. I did actually cover the pieces that I wanted to cover. As I said, there's plenty more, but those are the ones that appear to me to be the most different.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: We'll take a brief recess. Senator, I find your point of order well taken, and, it is ruled that the report of the committee on conference did go beyond the area of disagreements between the two houses and therefore is objectionable and cannot be considered by the senate. Senator Fromchittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I will move that the rules be suspended so the senate may consider an objectionable committee of conference report on h four fifty four, for the body. I believe it is often the case that committees of conference in closing things up do color a bit out of the lines. In this case, I don't believe it to be an objectionable amount. So I am moving to suspend the rules to continue debate on this bill. Otherwise, this bill which is the product of six months of work will die on a procedural objection. So I would ask, that senators consider that and move to suspend the rules.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the rules be suspended so the the senate may consider an objectionable committee of conference report on h four fifty four. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Point of information, mister president. What is the threshold that the senate needs to suspend the rules?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: I believe it's three quarters. It's three quarters of Are the you ready for the question?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested. Are you ready for the question? The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Yes. Brown. Yes. Senator Kidman.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Yes. With explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Clarkson? Yes. Senator Caldwell? Yes. Senator Cummings?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Yes. Senator Douglas?

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Yes. Senator Dooley? No. Senator Hardy? No. Senator Harrison? Yes. Senator Hart? Yes. Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Hefman? Yea. Senator Ingalls? Yes. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Major? Yes. Senator Matos? Yes. Senator Norris? Senator Pershing? Yes. Senator Plunkett? Yes. Senator Ron Hinsale? Yes. Senator Bahowski? No. Senator Watson? Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The ayes voting 26, the nays voting three, the threshold at 22, the motion carries. Senator from

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Oh, so I'm sorry. The senator from Chittenden had a vote explanation that I skipped over.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: I don't really want the floor, mister president, but I did say with explanation. This bill could be dragged out by adding it to h four eighty, and I have learned in my time here that, suspending the rules at this time of the session makes the most sense, and that's why I voted yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: I I much appreciate the senator's remarks. Mister president, if I might, let me take us all back to November. Not not my favorite night. But what I would say is that we all came out of that election with, I think, a remarkably clear idea of a problem in Vermont and that was property taxes had simply become unbearable. And as a result of that, this chamber looks fundamentally different. At that time, everyone sought new council, everyone looked for different ways to think about the issues involved, and at that time, we put out an invitation to the governor of the state of Vermont to come to the table with his team and show us his plan for transforming the educational system and the financing that undergirds And to my surprise his team did and the governor didn't. They engaged at the beginning of the process and we all sat in the well of the house and watched a big presentation from the Agency of Education and tax and other related folks in the administration. That was back in January. From there we had a bill introduced in the house by representative Tooth. That bill, from a republican began its movement through the process and went through democratic controlled committees And there was a great deal of work done over the next few months. That bill that came out wound up being the basis of our bill. So if you remember, we made a considered decision to work from the house language when that moment came. Senator Hardy, my colleague from Addison, produced a long comprehensive amendment to the house language working with senator Bongartz. They fashioned what became a 15 or 20 page amendment to the House language which this chamber then voted out. As you all remember the House wound up asking for a committee of conference which we put together. That committee of conference had an extended period of time so it went longer than such conferences usually do and it took us past our normal time of the journey. So I don't know about you, I got a bit of email over the weekend. Some of that email called this a last minute decision or a last minute plan. I take great objection to that because the work of my colleagues has been so visible and so apparent. So there were more joint hearings between the House and Senate on this issue than I've ever seen. There were more joint hearings internally within the Senate between education and finance in particular, withdrawing in other committees. All of that work to reach consensus has come to fruition today. We have a bill before us, a conference report supported by House and Senate leadership, House and Senate conferees, and the governor of the state of Vermont. That doesn't happen very often. Our options now are to approve that conference report or to go home with nothing on the issue. Literally. No. I can't do the latter. So I am voting enthusiastically for this conference report and I'll give you a couple of reasons why. At the heart of all of our discussions was the idea that we as a legislature had no control over what schools were spending. So when I would go out to my district to talk to them about their property tax bills, they didn't believe me. I told them your school board in your town can spend as much as they want and as long as your local voters approve it, that's fine. It gets added to the total and then our only option in particular, we can't not pay that bill. We either have to pay it as is or sometimes we try to help you out by buying down. So the only power we've ever exercised over spending is buying down the rate artificially and that doesn't help our fiscal health as a state. So for me, one of the key things about this bill was that it had to it had to turn spending at some level to the state. Now what I like about the, EOP, the equal opportunity payment, is that it is equal. So every district is going to get the same amount but weighted for the needs of their particular students. So it's a weighted equal opportunity payment and then in addition, a high spending town who finds those cuts too difficult to make they will be able to ask for up to 10% additional spending which will ramp down then to five. So in my mind, this solves one of the biggest disconnects that we have. Our voters on educational budgets are not connected to the results of their votes and neither are we. We have no control as it stands over spending and we are in a world where that can no longer be the case. So what I think is most important about this bill, it will equalize over time the amount of spending that we're doing and it will also, I believe, flatten the curve of inflation in what we're spending. Those are two key things. But I want to talk about one other piece that I know for some people was very emotional and produced a lot of I call it angst in the community and that is the issue of independent schools. So I think people might have gotten the impression from emails and communications and social media that somehow this bill increases money to public, to independent schools or that it creates privileges for independent schools that didn't previously exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. What this bill actually does is it cuts dramatically the number of schools who are approved to receive state funding. So the number of independent schools approved to receive state funding will shrink by more than half. That has never been attempted since I've been in the legislature and I had ten years on the education. No one would have thought you could get that much of a reduction in independent schools. And by the way, the bill immediately stops tuition money from going out of state to other independent schools in other states. So, I have some difficulty when someone says that the bill leans too much to independent schools. What it does is constrain them dramatically. And if someone can make an argument otherwise, I'm happy to hear it. But I would say just the number of schools and the number of students is going to shrink and there's no way around that. The last thing I want to say Mr. President by way of opening this debate is that I I teach, at UVM. I have taught all my life, sent my kids to public school. I've been in this job for fifteen years. I have never taken a vote that I thought was against public schools, and I never will. Voting for this bill is not a vote against public schools. Voting for this bill is a way of saving public schools from what is coming at them, and that is an animosity based on people's property taxes getting to the point where they can't bear it and they will vote all of us out to get that to stop. So what I'm saying is if you care about your public schools, you don't like independence, let's say, this is your bill. If you care about public schools and you want equal amounts going to the different places in the state, this is your bill. And finally, in terms of our process, we have done more on this bill for longer than I can think of in terms of any bill since I've been here. We started thinking and talking about it in December. As I said, it has moved through multiple, multiple, multiple joint committee hearings. We have taken so much ted testimony. We can't even capture it all, in in terms of reporting it. But what I will say is that the outcome is now supported again by the governor, House and Senate leadership, and your house and senate conferees. That is huge. It's not to be thrown away, and I ask for your vote for it. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a lot to say about this bill and I have already said a lot about this bill. I first wanted to start with a little bit of background about me. I started my career as a nonpartisan fiscal analyst for this Wisconsin legislature doing education finance analysis. I was the Julia for the Wisconsin legislature thirty years ago and they were going through a similar transformation of their education funding system, and I was the analyst who worked on the implications of that. So this work is super near and dear to my heart, and I know a lot about it. So when I knew that we were going to be spending this session on education finance I was excited and I wanted to be part of it. I unfortunately was not put in a position where I could be directly part of it to begin with, but I did end up there. And I say this even though I don't agree with the framing of the problem that, the senator from Chittenden just laid out, we did hear loud and clear from voters that they were upset about their property taxes and many of our former colleagues lost their seats because of it and because of other issues. So, bringing down property taxes has has always been a priority and I came into this session thinking, yes, we have to find a way to do that. But we didn't have to do it in the way that this bill does it. But the governor did come in and his secretary of education came in with a proposal and set out a framework. I don't think we necessarily should have turned everything over to them. Lots of us had ideas on how we could have done it differently, but we started with their framework and I have every step of the way engaged in that framework and in this process with good intentions and in good faith. And I have tried to offer my expertise and my knowledge to this process and I'm sorry I'm emotional about it because I have literally put blood, literally blood, sweat and tears as you can see into this process and a lot of heart. So it's hard. This is hard vote for me today. I, as I said, I did everything in good faith every step of the way. In the finance committee, I offered ideas. I talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and said, what do you think? What are your ideas? How can we engage? Even when I forgot their names, I always wanted to know how can we do this better and how can we come to compromise on these issues and how can I help you understand these issues? This is a really uncertain time especially for public education. There is a lot of going on a lot going on at the federal level, at the local level, and now at the state level, and our schools, our educators are really worried. And I think a lot of them have said, please no, not now. We can't take more uncertainty. But I also think they understood that something needed to be done and they engaged in good faith as well. In the house, they engaged in good faith and they came to the table and they said, here are our ideas. They didn't set the framework either, but they accepted it and came to the table and offered their best ideas on how to make it work. Then the bill came over to the Senate and I think a lot of them, a lot of the public school, community felt ignored by our chamber. They didn't feel they had a seat at the table. They didn't feel like we were engaging with them in good faith. But I still tried. I still really tried. And then when the bill, left the Senate Education Committee and came to the Senate Finance Committee, I continued to work on what I could, but ultimately could not vote for the bill as it came out of the Senate Finance Committee. Then as the Senator from Chitinen mentioned, when I got the opportunity after being asked by multiple people, I dove right in and thank you to the senator from Windsor and others for make making that ask. And I I did everything I could to make a good bill that could pass out of the Senate and move to the conference committee and be as close as possible and also as empirically based and responsible policy as possible. And that was hard work and I did it over three days and I negotiated in good faith with the senator from Bennington in a very small room, with only a couple other people there, but it was it was hard and we came to some really tough agreements on the issue specifically that the senator from Chittenden mentioned, the independent schools, but other things as well, and then the bill goes to conference committee and I still stayed engaged. I watched every single conference committee. I was in the room for all of them. I participated as much as I was allowed to in the meetings with the, the conference committee. I was in constant communication with our house counterparts who by the way have done an amazing job with this bill and I I watched it all on YouTube when I couldn't be here in the building and here is where I fell off the wagon. I stayed as long as I could at the table making this bill better, offering suggestions, being engaged, being in communication, and then last week what I saw was a conference committee that as you just heard, as the Lieutenant Governor just confirmed, went out of the bounds of what was in either the senate version or the house version of the bill and we had a conference committee that did not represent the senate's position and did not engage in good faith with the the public school community.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: I believe the senator is, ascribing negative motivation to the the

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I will back up.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: I I I would just

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I will back up.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. I would just ask the senator from Addison to keep your remarks on the bill itself.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Absolutely. I will say that they did not represent the the senate's position in the bill, and that is as has been ruled already by you, mister president. And I think if anybody watches the tapes of the of the conference committee last week, they will see that almost everything that the conference committee talked about somebody tried to add up the number of minutes nine so they came to something like 90% of the minutes that was on YouTube was about independent schools and I know that's an issue that is important to members of the conference committee but independent schools are 5% of the kids in our state or less than 5% are are educated at independent schools and I will say I agree with the senator from Chittenden that the bill does limit compared to current law but what I think happened last week was that there became a loss of trust, a loss of trust in this body that we were going to do right by education. As has been mentioned by the Senator from Bennington and others, there is still so much work that needs to be done on this bill. We come back next session and there are so many decisions that have to be made about how do we do districts? What do we do about special education? How do we fund career and technical education? What do we do about pre K? Is this the right foundation formula? There are so many decisions still to be made. And what people saw last week was that this chamber, this body did not have their back. And that's where over the weekend I heard from hundreds of people. I think I made 50 phone calls just myself yesterday to check-in with people to see what do you think. And they repeatedly, repeatedly told me, we don't trust the Senate. And that made me really sad. So I have put so much of myself into this bill and there is a lot that I like. The tax stuff is excellent. Some of the education stuff is very good, but it is resting on the ability of our body to do right by public education in the future and we lost their trust last week when people saw the performance of the committee on conference as they colored outside the lines. So Mr. President I do want to say that it was a really hard decision for me. I wrestled with it until late last night but I cannot support this bill because I think that it is too risky given the given the performance of the conference committee and what that will mean in the future. But I do also want to say before I stop say thank you again to the staff. The best part of this session has been working with you. So thank you so much Julia, Emily, Beth, Ezra, Kirby, and Ashley. I don't know if Ashley's in here, but thank you so much Ashley. And also, to the representative from Brattleboro, representative Kornheiser, and the representative from Cornwall, representative Conlin, they did an incredible job and watching them work last week was a true pleasure. So, thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden? No. Senator Clarkson? No. Senator Collabor? Yes. Senator Cummings? Yes. Senator Douglas?

[Senator Samuel Douglass (Orleans)]: Yes. With explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Duly? No. Senator Hardy? No. Senator Harrison? Yes. Senator Hart? Yes. Senator Hashim? No. Senator Hepburn?

[Senator Steven Heffernan]: Yes. With explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Ingalls?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex/Orleans)]: No. With explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Lyon? Yes. Senator Major? No. Senator Matos?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Yes. With an explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Norris? Senator Persuer? No. Senator Pumpkin? Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale? Yes. Senator Bahowski? No. Senator Watson? No. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Westman? No. Senator White? No. Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Yes. With explanation.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Okay, the explanations, yep. The yeas voting 17, the nays voting 12, and we have approved and accepted the report of the committee of conference on h four fifty four. For explanations, senator from Orleans.

[Senator Samuel Douglass (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. Forgive me if it's a little too long. I'm I'm voting yes not to stand with my colleagues or even the governor, but in support of the spirit of reform that I was elected in part to address. Without such reform to remain where we are, I have failed my voters. You'll see a continued onslaught of tax increases in the system that continues to grow beyond reason. I had many concerns and nonnegotiables as this bill has progressed, and in one way or another, they've all been addressed. I've gone back and forth in the last twenty four hours for the chagrin of many, but the final reason I settled here are the guardrails in place to bring us back next year to address concerns that still bother me. And I know one thing for certain, with the information I've been given in the last twenty, forty eight hours, I am not voting to raise property taxes. Thank you, mister Brady.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: For your explanation, senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan]: Thank you, mister president. I voted yes because I was brought here by my constituents to make changes in education. It's not just about what our property tax amount is. Education definitely definitely rules that, but it as much as I agree with my senators from Addison as well, we need to start some change, and this is a step forward in that change. We have a long ways to go and, I think I've said it quite a bit if we can't decide on districts this all might be for naught, but I need to vote yes to show that I'm ready for change in education. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Essex for your explanation.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex/Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. I don't know now because I don't believe that that we need to do better. I don't know because the initial first look raises taxes too high and too many of my towns, the poorest region of the state. I'm in sincere hopes that as we work on age four fifty four, we can make it to a law that puts kids first in education. I also hope that the first look that raises taxes on my on my towns levels out and that this bill does what we all hope that public education should do in Vermont, give Vermont kids the best education in the world. I also want to say how proud I am of the senate. There are a lot of senators who work incredibly hard to get where we are today, all the while staying composed, respectful, and committed to the constituents of the law. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chipton North for your vote explanation.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Mister president, today I vote yes on h four fifty four as a first step in the process, not the last. H four fifty four will begin the work to create a more equitable education system for all of Vermont's children. I look forward to continuing this work in January. Make no mistake, as the work continues, if it does not work for the school staff, the taxpayers, and most importantly, the children of the communities I serve, I will have to get off the bus at that time. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland for your vote explanation.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Vermont is a u unique place, and it's not the, only state I think it's the state that has the only constitutional requirement that we educate our children. The Brigham decision said, yes, we have to educate them and we have to pay for it and fund it equitably, but they did not say we had to do it with property taxes. But that that's, for another fight for another session. So the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. H four fifty four, although not perfect, is intended to deal with a problem which began with act 60 back in 1997. This bill is a plan to validate the education vision to make Vermont education a world class endeavor. And it will become just that if all stakeholders get on board with it and make it happen. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Mister president, may I explain my vote?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: You have to explain you have to ask for a vote explanation when you call out your roll call vote. It is not accepted in the senate to ask for an explanation afterwards.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Do we make no exceptions?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The only exception would be to ask the senate to approve a rule suspension.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: May I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: ask may I ask for a rule suspension so that I can explain my vote?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I am hesitant to vote for rule suspensions such as this in the middle of action, but I believe, and a point of information, could the senator not have a moment of personal privilege at announcements?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The the senator is always welcome a moment of personal privilege during announcements. If you would like to make a motion, senator from Windsor, you are also free to do that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: I will then do my vote ex explanation during announcements. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chitman.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you to the body. This was our most important issue. As I said in my remarks earlier, I think we have tackled it in the same way that last year flooding was our most important issue and we tackled that and the year before that it was childcare and we tackled that. This one has drawn a larger crowd. I want to thank all those who paid attention and who came out to speak with us about it. With that said, mister president, I would move that the senate suspend its rules to message the actions just taken on the conference report for h four five four. To the house floor.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Chinden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to action to message our actions on h four fifty four to the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: With that, mister president, I will ask for a five minute recess to confer with the senate secretary about finishing our work for today.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: We'll stand in recess for five minutes. Will the senate please come to order? Cheers. We lost our doorman, but I guess we don't have to shut the doors. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. Stop and start as I promised you. So the house still has h four eighty, which is a miscellaneous education bill. We wanna make sure that goes through. It has the no phones in schools piece in it, which was important to many of us. So they are back in at 05:00, mister president. So I will ask that we recess until six.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senate John. Senator from Chinon Central is moved that the senate stand in recess until 06:00. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Might this be an appropriate moment given everyone's laugh and it's just us chickens.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Would you like to speak on a point of personal privilege? You bet.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: I could speak on a point of personal privilege.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: You bet.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: First, I'm a c, So I don't get to see everybody who's gonna explain their vote. And so there was a C about exfoliations and I thought, you know, I actually have a thought that I would like to share. So if I may, indulge me. It's short. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, fight for the things that you care about, but don't in a way that will lead, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you. And I think the reason I in part voted no on this is that I do not think we brought the Vermont education community, our parents, our teachers, our superintendents, a lot of our education community and our constituents were not brought along. And that's partly timing. It's just part of where we were. But I think one of our jobs is to bring people along, lead them to a place where we can get to yes. Education transformation has to happen. There is no question. But getting there is critically important. Meaningful transformation needed more time and more buy in. Public education deserves more care, more listening, more respect. We cannot afford to compromise the integrity of one of the key foundations of our democracy. And that is all I wanted to say. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Tinhin Central has moved that the senate stand in recess until 06:00. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in recess until 6PM this evening.