Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is what I have to say.

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Welcome. Welcome, everybody. It is Thursday, February 12. And we are in because it's Thursday, we're focusing on labor, and we're gonna begin with some bill introductions from our members from our other senators. And today, we welcome my colleague from the Windsor District, Joe Major. And Joe, if you'd be kind of introduce yourself and introduce this bill, that would be great.

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: Thank you, madam chair. Joe Major. As the chair said, senator from Windsor. Thank you for the opportunity to present an overview of s three sixty s three sixty. Dyslexia three zero six. This legislation recognizes the critical role that public safety dispatchers and emergency communication professionals play in Vermont's emergency response system and provides them with the appropriate recognition, training support, and workers compensation protections for post traumatic stress disorder. Purpose of the bill, act three zero six formally defines public safety dispatchers and emergency communication personnel as first responders in communications. These professionals serve as the first point of contact during emergencies. They assess situations, provide life saving instruction, coordinate police, fire, and EMS resources, and manage multiple high risk incidents simultaneously. The purpose of this act is to recognize the essential and often traumatic nature of this work and provide access to benefits more traditionally associated with other first responders, including training opportunities and mental health support. Key provisions. First, the bill establishes a new chapter in title 20 defining first responder and communications. The definition includes individuals certified by the Vermont Enhanced nine eleven Board or employed as emergency communication dispatchers responsible for life saving communication services. The bill also directs employers to provide training that maintains and enhances the knowledge, skill, and proficiency of these professionals. Second, s three zero six amends Vermont's workers compensation statute to include first responders and communications alongside police officers, firefighters, EMS personnel, certain state employees. The bill creates a presumption that a PTSD diagnosis by a mental health professional was, incurred in the line of duty unless evidence shows the condition was caused by a non service related factors. Eligibility for benefits extend to individuals diagnosed within three years of their last active employment. Workforce and economic content. Emergency communication centers across Vermont face ongoing workforce challenges, including recruitment difficulties, high stress, and turnover. The nature of the work exposes dispatchers to repeated traumatic events without the closure that field responders sometimes experience. Recognizing these professionals as first responders and ensuring access to appropriate supports is an important step towards improving retention, strengthening the workforce workforce, excuse me, and maintaining reliable emergency services statewide. From an economic and community development perspective, effective emergency communications are foundational to public safety, community stability, and business confidence. Strong and well supported dispatch systems are essential infrastructure for both residential and employers, residents, excuse me, residents and employers. Finally, S306 provides long overdue recognition for the professionals who answer every emergency call and coordinate the response that follows. By acknowledging their role as first responders and ensuring access to training and PTSD protections, this bill strengthens Vermont's public safety system and supports the workforce behind. I thank you

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: for your consideration. Thank you for introducing us. You have a sort of companion bill. Yes. It is David. David, that's a question.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: If I could. So every bill has a story. Sure. Bill has a genesis. Yeah. I'm wondering who brought this for, know, who who made this who made you aware and what type of support are you already aware of

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: behind So who made me aware of it was the chief of police from Hartford. She she brought it to me, and full disclosure, I was unaware because I knew that, on the state level, their, dispatchers were covered during this. And just local municipalities weren't. And so, it was a blind spot for me as well, and once I found that out, I I thought it was, good to to to cover all dispatchers.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You have a notion of

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: how many that is across the state? I do not, but actually, I can get that And information for also, I'll figure for instance, take Hartford for instance. It it is across the state as well, which we they cover both New Hampshire and Lebanon as well as so I would suspect that there is some other state.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, we'll find out if New Hampshire covers.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So so and you thank you for that. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: before Sophie, because it's a silly back and forth at the moment. Well, I don't I'll also have you introduce 307, and then we can get to committee, and we can bring Sophie in.

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: That would be spectacular. I appreciate that. Thanks for the opportunity to present the overview of s three zero seven, the Fire Service Weekly Overtime Standards Act. This bill addresses a long standing issue in the fire service, the gap between the demanding schedules of our career firefighters work and overtime protections afforded to many other workers and public safety professionals. The core goal of s three zero seven is straightforward, to establish a reasonable maximum average work week for career firefighters and to require overtime compensation for hours worked beyond the threshold that threshold. Bill sets that standard at 42 per week on average, with overtime paid at time and a half or hours exceeding that level. Firefighters work extended shifts under physically and mentally demanding conditions. Long hours and accumulated fatigue can affect health, family stability, job performance, and operational safety. By establishing a clear overtime standard, the legislation is intended to promote firefighters' health and wellness, reduce fatigue related risk during emergency response, improve recruitment and retention in a field facing workforce challenges, and align compensation practices more closely with expectations placed on these professionals. Key provisions in the bill. S three zero seven would add a new section to Vermont's labor laws specific to full time firefighter. One, forty two hour average work week standard. State, municipal, and county fire departments must pay overtime at one and a half times the regular work rate or hours worked beyond the average of forty two hours per week. Two, eight week average method. The average work week is calculated over a period prior to eight weeks, providing flexibility for departments and use of rotating extended shift schedules. Three, compensation definition of hours worked. Hours worked include all duty time as well as paid leave, paid time off, and paid standby time, ensuring consist consistency and clarity. Four, local flexibility preserved. The bill explicitly allows municipalities, fire districts, and bargaining units to negotiate more protective standards through collective bargaining with local policy. Five, implementation timeline. Effective 07/01/2026, Departments must make necessary staffing or scheduling adjustments by January 2027. And six, rule making authority. The Commissioner of Labor may adopt rules to ensure uniform calculation and reporting. The Impact Considerations This proposal recognizes that departments operate under varying staffing models and fiscal restraints. The eight week averaging period and delayed implementation are intended to provide operational flexibility and planning timeline. The bill does not mandate a specific schedule model, instead it creates a compensation framework that allows communities to choose the approach that works best, whether through scheduling, changes, staffing adjustments, or negotiated agreements. Across Vermont, fire departments, like many public safety agencies, are facing recruitment and retention challenges. Compensation predictability and fairness are critical factors in attracting and keeping experienced personnel. At the same time, ensuring firefighters are not consistently working excessive hours without appropriate compensation supports both public safety and workforce stability. S three zero seven represents a measured step to modernize overtime policy for career firefighters while maintaining local control and flexibility. Finally, s three zero seven establishes a reasonable overtime standard, supports firefighters' health and operational safety, and provides municipalities with time and flexibility to adapt. I look forward to the committee's discussion and to hearing from municipality leaders, fire service professionals, and labor representatives, and other stakeholders as you evaluate the bill's fiscal and operational impacts.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, Joseph. Are you gonna ask your story question on this one too?

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Such a good radio broadcaster. Yeah. We should have you record everything.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I was just curious. So shift work, most my understanding are by our friends, professionals, full time. They work in twenty four hour shifts. So two twenty four hour shifts already exceeds the overtime limits. So two days a week, two twenty four hour shifts in a week are already violated from this subject. That's the intent, That they're we're recognizing the twenty twenty four hour shift at twenty four hour working hours.

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: So I'm I'm going to defer to the just like I defer to the person who brought me the reason I'm defer to the the person next to me who brought me the milk to answer that question.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Chris, you I don't

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think so. We have five more minutes, so we have got to So go through

[Chris Newby (President, Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: Chris Newby, president of professional qualified advisor of Vermont. So my background was I had thirty three years of the half of Vermont. So fifth there's fifty six hours, forty two hour work weeks. The most common in the fire service. There are some federal ones that work, it's like a seventy two hour work week. So basically day on, day on, day on. You might get They call it Kelly Day in there. The way that this works, it does it over an eight week cycle. You could work two days one week, or maybe one the next, but in an eight week cycle, averages out of the forty two hours. The same with the fifty six hour work. Then a week, put in three twenty four hour shifts, over an eight week cycle, it averaged out to fifty six hours. That's basically all over. I don't it's just confusing, but it's based on hours work and the rotation of, like, you start on a Sunday and eight weeks you're back to that Sunday you started on, in that timeframe you can take all of and average out, it comes out to fifty six hours. And I recommend that if

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the chair continues with this, they'll kind of lay that out, like give us a diagram Chart. That would be correct. You know, whatever the eight week cycle is and then the normal or at least Yes. Or for how how that would

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: On an Excel spreadsheet.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. How it looks Gorgeous. And then then how it bumps into this bill. Sure. What would potentially get to?

[Chris Newby (President, Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: Yeah. Absolutely. And like I said, there's there's many different schedules, whether it's two days on. Like, we work a day on, two days off, a day on, four days off. We're 42, something with day on, three days off, day on, and three days off. When I first got hired, we did forty two, but it was two ten hour days, two fourteen hour nights, and

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: then four days off. But it

[Chris Newby (President, Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: all averaged out to forty two hours. Great. And I'm happy to do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm gonna keep us on on on task here and on time. Thank you,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Joe. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We are very grateful, and we're gonna invite Sophie to come up and just quickly run through these two bills, and then we're going to turn to s $2.92. Thank you. Joe, thank you. Alright. Good

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: morning. I'm Sophie Sedatney from the Office of Legislative Council. Good morning. Good morning. Do I have, I should share my screen. Okay, I'd rather just chat.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And not in-depth, Sophie, because we have three or four minutes. We're gonna try and do these buildings.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I will say, I thought Sam has made you do an excellent job. Yeah. We rarely connect. Yeah. We're good. So, oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I've the bills again.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, do you have the bills in

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: front of you, correct? We have it in front of us. Okay.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So again, this would create a new chapter in Title 20 specifically to cover

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Three zero six, please.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is for three zero six, right, that, yes, not three zero six. Yeah. And again, I think it's already being discussed. But this would essentially, there are different definitions throughout the statutes around first responders. Mean, they're called different things. This would really create a specific definition as stated. And so that would be the definition that's on H2, what would be immune section twenty four sixty one. And again, it's a lengthy definition, but the goal is to kind of capture all the current definitions that are out there in the statute. The training, it provides that to the extent practical employees for first responder and communication shall provide training to maintain and enhance the knowledge, skills and proficiency of the first responder and treating patients. So there is nothing specific right now. There are different funds that are out there. There's an emergency medical services special fund. I think this would enable first responders and communications to tap into some of the training funds that are out there currently. For first responders, I don't know that for a fact, but there are different funds out there. So if there's a question on whether funding would come for training, I think it would just enable first response for communications to tap into some of the existing funding. And then under the workers' compensation piece, again, I thought Senator Major did an excellent job, the General Assembly in recent years has added in this presumption of, if you're diagnosed with PTSD, that it's assumed to be within the line of duty for certain physicians if it occurs within three years. And so this would simply add first responders and communications to that. And this was a recommendation that came out of, there's an emergency service provider wellness commission that was created in 2021, and they have a list of recommendations, and this specifically was one of the recommendations was to provide PTSD coverage through workers' compensation for, again, the dispatchers, first responders and communication. So that's really the sum of it and the incentives are major. Okay, all the key You did a terrific job. There is just, I know often there's a question in terms of what other folks are doing. There is a federal bill. I don't know whether it's gonna go anywhere across the Senate called Enhance the First Responder Act that would direct the Federal Communications Commission to issue reports. So again, that has some elements of protection in there, but again, I don't know if that's going to move. And then there are a number of other states that have done the same thing, including in New Hampshire as one

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of our local ones. Right. And three zero seven, just briefly?

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So three zero seven, again, as discussed, was to do with creating a forty two hour per week threshold for overtime. And, again, this would be flexible as as senator Major reflected. I would say to senator Weeks' point, I mean, if you again, that's just multitudes of all the way these different schedules work. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, there are examples of how the scheduling could work, and it's incredibly complicated, so I do think that would be a subject to have separate testimony Yeah. And so, this is a push, I will say there's a national push on this right now, so we're not, again, Vermont's not to know. Rhode Island, I know, has passed something similar, but there is an effort you know, provide more regularity and for firefighters. And again, it's over a cycle. Currently under the FLSA, again, are rules, foreign duty rules, again, to try and manage the time, and and, again, this flexibility of looking back over over time to make sure you're not, you know, forty two hours a week, but it's eight it's averaged out over eight weeks. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Thank you. Any questions?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I can just kind of in preparation if you, Madam Chair decides to take this bill off. Well, we, ready? A, from a military perspective, where we wouldn't go out the twenty four hour, we would be on ship for six months, I would like to see cost analysis, time utilized, be really a compelling case to pair this with. Just as a heads up, so we don't just come in and talk about the same stuff. We really wanna see some

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: quantified pathology. GFOs, with VLCT, who's top of my list of witnesses, and then I'm gonna ask Chris, who's here today, to please, if you could be kind enough to email Kira and myself, the witness some of a couple witnesses that you would wanna include, on this, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Sophie. We're gonna pivot now to, 292, which, Thomas is gonna introduce, and and we're then going to hear from, Sophie. And so, Sophie, you can sit right there and, few other witnesses. So, Thomas, it's yours.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thank you, madam chair. So two ninety two is a bill that would lift prohibition, against, Vermont's state of colleges and the UVM employees from withholding their labor in times of collective bargaining. But, they would allow them to strike. Now I don't think that the advocates for this want to strike. I don't think labor organizations want to strike at all. The impetus for this bill to one hundred weeks previous points on the last two was in the most recent contract negotiations with staff at the University of Vermont. There were many concerns raised and big full acknowledgement. I am a longtime faculty and staff member at UBM. The union's been there for me whenever I needed. I'm still a strong proponent of United Academics and I know a lot of friends that were involved in this staff negotiation. So there was many concerns that the negotiation would drag out for a longer period of time than it necessarily should have been, which kept a lot of employees in limbo, not knowing if they they were going to continue to work there, meaning if their their labor was valued at the appropriate rate, and also suspended raises that were negotiate be in active negotiation for. I want to get the numbers right, but it was almost like full year, if not longer than a year. Those were were those that make that amount of money. Those are real dollars that they needed in order to pay their bills, pay their rent and otherwise, especially Chittenden County housing market. So the arguments are that had they had the ability to strike, it would have motivated management in order to get them to the book bargaining table and resolve it on a much more sooner. So that's why I think it would be fair to give them the same capabilities. I would defer to Sophie who knows this topic matter really well as to the historical precedent for why UBM and College employees can't strike currently. It has something to do with the fact that they are state funded and, other states do approach this in a variety of different ways. It's not one gold standard for this, but many of my colleagues really advocated for the right to withhold their labor in order to improve their negotiating capabilities to collective bargaining discussions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And can you just remind us that you may have said it, and I just hear it. The length of the last, negotiation because it was endless.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I would really glad that we have a speaker here that can say it would increase assurance, but I don't have the specific time frame. I just know it was a year, if not longer, or somewhere around then.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: Thirteen months.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thirteen months. Thank you. That's helpful. Saturday, a whisper in my ear.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Alright. And again, briefly, because we're gonna hear from two people. I think Thomas, Yolanda, or what? It was just this one.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. One might.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have it in front of us, Sophie. Okay. Alright. And that's one bench. Okay.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Two things. So what so what you currently have in front of you, it's simply so this is under the state employee labor relations act. Vermont had seven labor relations act. This is under the state employee labor relations act, which covers, as noted, University of Vermont and the Vermont State College system. And so all this bill does right now is it simply removes the prohibition on strikes specifically for the institutions of public higher education. So right now, under the State Employee Labor Relations Act, there's no right to strike for any of the employees covered by that. This would just carve out an exception to that prohibition. So, if the committee moves this forward, I would point out that you would need a bigger bill than this. Historically, in Vermont, we have under the teachers, the Labour Relations Act, the teachers and administrators, they have a right to strike, and also under the Municipal Employee Relations Act, there's also a right to strike. But there are other provisions in those statutes that provide that for cooling off periods. There are guardrails around the right to strike and the teacher's situation, for example, there's the right for management once you've gone through the process, so there's a right to strike, and then there's also the right of the school board to impose, you know, actually impose a contract at the end of it. So, with the current mechanism that we have under the State of the Labor Relations Act is this, when you get an impasse in negotiations, you go to mediation, then you go to non binding, back binding, and then you go to work for blast best offer, either a threat to the liberation or a threat to an arbitrator, and that's the the in class resolution system. And so, again, you would need to put something else in this to, you know, have some other mechanism in here. It's not just removing the right to strike. You need some mechanism on the other side to make sure that it's a a fair system that pushes both parties towards resolution. So that's a very big picture. Generally speaking, there's no federal law giving public sector unions the right to strike. That's all done on a state by state basis. The vast majority of states do prohibit their public sector employees from striking. But there are some that, again, like in Vermont, do allow teachers and municipal workers to strike in certain circumstances. We're the only state in New England to do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Really? I'd Yeah.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so I would just say, to the point on the sort of public policy thing, would say there was, the BLRB in a decision in 1982 was explaining why the right to strike is not covered for state employees, and they said the strike is an economic weapon of state employees. So what the state has done is substituted these impasse procedures that I just touched on. It said the legislature opted for a peaceful and feudent, although oftentimes an IP approach to resolve bargaining disputes rather than a potentially disruptive approach. So again, there's just different philosophies but historically again, if you're thinking of public sector employees who have, you know, police firefighters, just like what we were talking about, there are reasons why they don't have the right to strike with public safety reasons. So that's kind of the balance that you're always trying to draw Right. In your situations.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So thank you, Sophie. And we're gonna pivot to Okay. Alison Banks. Sophie Banks. This is our like speed dating. Well, it's okay because for those of you who are new to our our process, we introduce bills. We hear the the substance. We understand the story behind them, and then we decide as a committee what we are willing to make time for or not given the priorities that we're drafting already. Great. So I hope I can flesh this out for you. Let's just introduce ourselves because you are new to our candidates. Well, wonderful to have you, and then we'll ask you to introduce yourself and figure out what you're David, you wanna start?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: David Weeks, Brunswick County.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Randy Brock, Rutland County and Northern Part of the Grand Island County.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Alison Clarkson, District.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Kesha Ram Hinsdale, we know each other and perhaps this is a good time. I mean, I've always been affiliated with the University of Vermont, but thanks to Senator Chittenden, I'm now adjunct faculty there and taking on more teaching at the Rubenstein School in addition to the business. I hope that this affects me. We

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have an adjunct and we have a lecturer, right? Right. And we have an employee.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: We do. Well, morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S-two 92. My name is Ellen Kay. I work at the University of Vermont as a full time library cataloger. I also serve as co president, along with Claire White house, of UVM Staff United, which is a local of AFT, so I can lay the groundwork here. American Federation of Teachers in Vermont, we are one of the locals, as is United Academics, another local at University of Vermont. And I also, as well as my co president, serve as head lead negotiator for Bargain. Our union was established in 2021. We represent, and I share on behalf of my colleagues, there are 1,500 clerical, technical, specialized, and professional staff at UPM.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry, how many again? About 1,500. Our

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: union is led by members who are all full time workers at UPM, not an outside entity. We carry out all of the work of our local, including doing our own contract bargaining and enforcement. So I'm here today in support of this bill, which would lift the prohibition, as you heard, for striking for public higher ed workers at UVM and Vermont State University, and as we've heard, under provision of the current statute, public higher ed workers are expressly prohibited from striking and work stoppages. And this means that member leaders like myself are not permitted to coordinate any strikes or work stoppages. It is my understanding, and I have been advised by legal folks that doing so would put our union itself and our leaders at risk for things like lawsuits and termination. So to be clear, in supporting this bill, we are not expressing our desire to strike. That's been said here already. No union member wants to strike. It carries risks. It requires tremendous work on part of the union and its members, and I don't know if you know this, but striking a strike mode requires 90% yes vote. So that's a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: big tip. It is not a tool to be used lightly.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: What having a right to strike does is to level the playing field out of bargaining with labor. We know that when management understands that workers can withhold our labor, there is incentive for them

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to bargain in good faith.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: We're asking to lift the prohibition and extend to Vermont parade workers the same protections and rights that other unions, especially private sector unions, notably K-twelve workers in Vermont as well. And we wouldn't be alone. Public higher education workers in 11 other states have the right to strike, And I know from being a longtime Vermonter that Vermonter doesn't always wait for everybody else to do something the board can do. The possibility of a strike is essential to creating a level playing field for unionized workers. Without it, employers hold all the levels of control, and workers have very little leverage. Postulating a strike also gives management incentive to come to a timely and prompt. And as we talked before, just an example, I'll pass these out. AFT Global, private sector unions have bargained contracts significantly less time than the public sector unions at UVM and Vermont State Universities. So these handouts show that the average length of bargaining reopening contracts, second contracts or successor contracts, in private sector unions within AFT is three point seven months. The average length of bargaining reopener successor contracts in AFT public sector unions is 8.5. And I wanna point out that in these settled contracts that took less time, no strikes were needed to settle those private sector contracts. The possibility of a strike alone was incented for management to bargain in good faith in a timely manner.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Sorry, I'm on the bill, but can you just remind me, are the graduate students in UVM Staff United, or are they only They're

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: part of UAW, and they've

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: been working very hard for a contract for more than a year.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Right, that's right. Correct. As long as the court doesn't have have They're not addressed in this bill either way. I think they would be. Would be Yes. They get a contract. Anyone hire anyone Then this would be written into their

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: This this would not be a

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: part of a contract at all. Okay.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: I'm so sorry. I'm Lisa. I'm the political organizer for AMT Connors. There five unions at UVM. The ones that are employed directly by University of Vermont would be part of this. So the workers workers,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They're not part. So do you know how many unions are at the Vermont State University? Seven. Seven. Thank you. I've got the chancellor right next to me. Thank you. That's very useful. Seven. And I would remember what may be good for the goose. It's may not good for the gander. So, you know, UVM I mean, they're very different scale universities with different pocket sizes. Mhmm. And I I hope in your thoughts about this, you've considered what this would do. Right. May not sink UBM, but would really be a challenge for Oh, yeah.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: We're not talking about a desire to strike me. Doesn't sound about letters. And the and the folks at Vermont State College in those units are supportive of this measure. Long, drawn out bargaining costs time and money. In this case, taxpayer money. Last year, UBM spent $135,000 on an outside national law firm to fight its staff union, and we don't use lawyers at the table. It took thirteen months to reach an agreement, six months at the table and in mediation, another seven months to go through a fact finding process requiring lawyers in a hearing. UBM employees, both management and union members, could and should have been doing the important work of serving students and Vermonters. During the course of fact finding, we learned that UBM had budgeted more for wage increases than they had actually offered us negotiations. And after UBM drew out the bargaining, past our contract expiration date, it threatened that the contract settlement would not include retroactive pay, meaning that UVM's ability to stall would actually save them money on the backs of hard working staff. The fact finder, however, stated in his findings, this is a neutral fact finder, a potential recommendation that a contract should be retroactive would provide a public sector employer with an unfair advantage in bargaining. A public sector employer might deliberate in bargaining, knowing the longer it took to reach an agreement, the more money could be saved because the settlement was not retroactive. Apropos to the topic of this proposed legislation, he went on to say, On the other hand, a union without the right to strife would have very little leverage to speed up the bargaining other than to make concessions it might not otherwise have made. So in conclusion, without the ability to strike, it took thirteen months and the ruling of the neutral fact finder to rein in UVM management and finally get us a contract for our members, which included RetroAct A. We need to give public higher ed workers access to all of the tools in the toolbox. This legislation would reinstate from state the rights that union need to have to have an equal seat at the table. And let me spell that out for a moment. We are employees of the people who are on the other side of the table. Our union protects us. They have power over us. They can fire us. They can reorganize our workplaces. Have many, many tools. Without the tool of being able to use our right to strike, or to at least have it be a possibility in the world, it is not equal to the frustration. So, want to thank you all for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleagues and higher ed workers in Vermont. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming. Any questions? We have another minute for Ellen. Any questions here, Ellen? Right.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: You. And so Yeah. To presentation. With

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Are all staff at UVM above a certain

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: wage threshold at this point? Like, are you, like, UVM Medical? Being the, you know, the $20

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Yes, yes.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: In our first contract, we won a $20 minimum, which has decreased every However, time we won an at the time of this bargaining, 75% of our union was below what HUD considers an affordable wage to live in greater Right. Because it's not a livable wage. Yes, is not a livable wage, and so that's what was essential for us to fight for in this contract. So we're inching, inching over decades of stagnation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. Terrific. We, really appreciate. And thank you, Thomas, for bringing this to us. We're now going to turn into a bill we already have introduced, two seventy seven, which is an act relating to prohibiting mandatory overtime for nurses. And we're going to begin with Sophie going through the work that she sent us, but she may not have had a chance to look at a matrix of state by state comparison of laws prohibiting mandatory overtime for nurses. So we kind of just to quickly update us on this work, then we're gonna go to Lisa and Devon and then Helen.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're gonna return back to the

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: straggled tube?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: At another point if we wanna pick it up. Okay. So right now we're gonna do two seventy seven.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so my understanding was there were

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: a number of questions that came up

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: last when I testified, so I just wanted to follow-up on that. So one was the matrix showing the state by state comparison. So there are 18 other states that have prohibitions on mandatory overtime for nurses, so that has been provided to you and I believe it's also posted on the webpage. The other question was, you had asked around there was private law legislation seeking to prohibit mandatory overtime for nurses. So there was a bill, age two sixty eight in 2009. I didn't know if you wanted me to go through that. I mean, was introduced in 2009, got referred to House Appropriations in 2010, and then evidently didn't

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It didn't make it through.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I could run through if there were I think if we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: take it up, if we go further, we could do that. But we have 18, so thank you for doing this work. 18 other states do prohibit mandatory overtime.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other question was around other hospitals that have collected blood.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and that was other key, is what do the other hospitals in Vermont?

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so Vermont, I have seen the contract at the University of Vermont Medical Center that I can provide on that, that does have a prohibits mandatory overtime beyond what's scheduled. They don't define what an emergency is. If you remember in the proposed bill, there's a list of sort of the exceptions to the mandatory overtime for emergency circumstances. Based on what I could find, Cockley Hospital, Brattleboro Retreat, and Porter Medical Center also have contracts that deal with limits on, you know, how much time nurses can be working, but I don't have copies of those contracts.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And what was the third one? Copley Bravo Retreat. And Porter Medical. Porter.

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other question was around the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. And again, I can send a link to that, but what they require for medical residents. And, again, it's kind of interesting because it goes a little bit back to the firefighters. Okay. So it's clinical and educational work hours must be limited to no more than eighty hours per week, average over a four week period, including all in house clinical and educational activities, clinical work done from home, all room lighting. Residents should have eight hours off between scheduled clinical work and education periods. Residents must have at least fourteen hours of brief clinical work and education after twenty four hours of in house org, and residents must be scheduled for a minimum of one day in seven free of clinical work and required education, again, averaged over four weeks. So you you could have a very intense couple of weeks and then more time off, and that they can't be called at home when they're having their time off. I can certainly provide the link to that if that's available. And then physicians, there's no federal regulation that regards the work hours of physicians, and there are no, as far as I know, are no states that legally cap the number of hours that a fully licensed practicing physician can work in a week. Typically, their work is determined by whatever their employment contract is. So, only

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: residents have any kind of?

[Sophie Zdatny (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And that's set by the those standards are set by the accrediting agency of graduate medical education. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, Sophie. I so appreciate. We have three people who are interested in speaking and who we've asked to come speak to this bill. So let's begin with Lisa Garelick and welcome Lisa. Think this is your first time here. Yes. Yeah,

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: so thank you for having me. I'm Lisa Garlack. I serve as the lead political organizer for AFT Vermont. We're the state's largest healthcare and higher education union, representing about 12,000 workers. So you've heard about some of our higher ed things that we're working on. Healthcare, we have healthcare workers at UVM Medical Center, Porter Hospital, Central Vermont Medical Center, and Brattleboro Memorial Hospital. So we're really spread throughout the state. We represent nurses and techs, support staff, other medical professionals. I know this is specifically focused on nurses, though. And as you know, one of the major functions of a labor union is negotiating contracts with employers that help improve working conditions for union members, which includes health and safety. Mandatory overtime is no exception to this. When nurses and other healthcare professionals are forced to work mandatory overtime, it's dangerous not only for the workers, but for patients that they're caring for. And as Sophie mentioned, because we recognize that mandatory overtime and shifts that are twelve, fourteen, sixteen plus hours are dangerous, that's been negotiating too, from the research I did, all of the contracts that our nursing unions have. And because these contracts are, it's not a one-sided agreement, it's a two sided agreement with the hospital, I

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: don't think it's stretched to

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: say that not only have our workers recognized that this is important and important protection for both workers and patients, but I would say that it's not stretched to say that the hospital administrations also believe this because it's in the contract that they've all agreed to. So we have Porter. There's language that says there shall be no mandatory overtime except for when Porter Medical Center determines that there's an emergency situation where the safety of the patient requires its use and there's no reasonable alternative. UVM Medical Center and Central Vermont Medical Center, in those contracts, there's language that says that there shall be no mandatory overtime except in an emergency, and similar for the Brownboro Federation of Nurses, there shall be no mandatory overtime except in an acute, unanticipated, and emergent change in staffing volume and or acuity. So, as mentioned, it's been worked into several of our contracts. The amount of hours that that that that counts as mandatory overtime differs between the contracts. So I think that our workers have enjoyed and benefited from these protections that they won at the bargaining table, but strengthening these protections by having them be consistent across the board and cogifying them in state statute would ensure that nurses and patients around the state, regardless of whether or not they're affiliated with the union, would benefit from them as well. So as I'm sure you're aware, there are a lot of dangers of mandatory overtime with extended hours. The effects have been well studied. There are several academic studies that have looked into this. But to be quick with it, working shifts longer than twelve hours without adequate time off in between make it far more likely for nurses to burn out and leave their jobs, and we already have a nurse shortage in the state, so we don't need to make that worse. It's also strongly linked to a reduction in quality of care and is specifically linked to patient mortality and hospital acquired conditions, including pressure ulcers, falls, central line associated bloodstream infections, and catheter associated urinary tract infections. That's directly from an academic study that I can share with you all. Like I said, it's harmful not just to the workers, but to the patients as well. I just would ask you to think of any loved one that you have being cared for by somebody who is fatigued. It could be a very dangerous situation that I know I wouldn't want to see anybody in my life go through. And also, as Sophie mentioned, there are 18 other states who have this in state law, either a ban or a severe limit on mandatory overtime, including our neighbors in New Hampshire and New York. It's true that we have a nursing shortage in the state, but mandatory overtime is not the answer. It puts patients in danger, it puts workers in danger, and these practices may help in the short term, but in the long term, it leads to burnout, it leads to people leaving their jobs, and it will just exacerbate problems.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Yeah, thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Do you have any data as to how many accidents or really challenging situations have happened as a result of nurses working in overtime. Do we have data on that? Maybe Devin has it. I don't know. I think we would want to see the data on what actually is happening in Vermont in terms of the accidents or the fatalities or whatever has happened during a documented overtime period.

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: Yeah, and I don't have that data specifically in front of me. And like I mentioned, in the hospitals that we represent, there's already a band of some sort or a limb patient of some sort.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: But I can look into that.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Right, that would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be great. Lisa, thank you, Deb. Oh, David has a question.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just a quick one. Of, maybe I'd point

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you to Sally. Yes, we must work on the same committee. That's great.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: How prevalent is men? We have any data on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that? Right,

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: and I don't have that because, as I mentioned, I know the hospitals that we represent as well already have that ban in place. I think quarter, it's sixteen hours though, which is a bit long, and I know I've heard that from some folks that sixteen hours is most of the day. So I don't have that data, and I think that this would more than solve the issue for at least the hospitals that we represent. I unfortunately don't have the data on other hospitals. It would just help make it equal across the board, that way, regardless of if those workers are in our union, in a different union, or not unionized at all, that those are just across the board the same for everyone.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. I'm gonna just give Kesha, you have a quick question? No. Well, I just want Devin, I just wanna have Devin and Helen play in. But if you did, go for it.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Well, actually, I just felt like while Lisa's here, you had said something about the goose and the gander with the state colleges, and I wondered if she could I feel badly that UDM represented the issue, and I think maybe you could just speak to, you know, this is also something important to the state colleges.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And the seven there are seven unions at the state college. Yeah. I I

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Well, this was about the Well, one thing Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. No. No. I'm just curious. I mean, it would be it would be good to have somebody from the state college and obviously if we take it out.

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: I do have somebody from the state colleges who is interested in giving testimony. I know that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let us know. That'd be great. Yeah. Exactly.

[Lisa Garlack (Lead Political Organizer, AFT Vermont)]: I know he'll be here on the twenty sixth of this month already, so I I can speak with you later about

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We'll check. We'll probably have to move on some of this before then. Great. Great. Devon. Thank you, Lisa. Good morning. Good morning, Devon. It's the

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: first time- I know. Yeah. Devin Green, Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Do you know all of us? I do. Okay.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Great. Good to see you again. And I'll just start off by saying, I met with our chief nursing officers on Monday. They were similarly sort of questioning where is this coming from? Where's the data? We haven't been hearing this as a concern. Nine of our 15 hospitals are unionized, and so we just have questions around this and the need for it and would love to see more data. One thing I would like to stress is that while long hours may attribute to, patient outcomes, the use of traveling nurses also has a bad impact on patient outcomes. So really the solution is investing more in our workforce development and increasing our workforce. But some of the questions I have, you know, as you saw the legislation here, it had all different sorts of periods. Some of it is just based off of your contract. Some of it is based off of sixteen hours. We don't know if the time is right. The medical residents, as was testified to, are eighty hours a week over a four week period. That's much different than what we're talking about here. And then the language in here around collective bargaining agreements, the way I read it, I just want to, if this bill moves forward, I want to ensure that the agreements supersede the law, because we think it's really important that those agreements be honored. It looks like the law wouldn't, like this is something that's negotiated with. I prefer that hospitals and unions, you know, if those bargaining agreements are negotiated, is there a way to have them supersede the law in this case? I think usually we set

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: a floor in labor law, and they can depart Like, down up. Know. Like, up and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think Sophie can also answer that.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Yeah. Yeah. Think really what we're advocating for is, you know, allowing we don't we haven't heard that this is a problem. We would love to allow for this to be worked out through contract to create greater flexibility. Because one of the things that I saw in the exemptions piece that I immediately thought of was, you know, there are exemptions there for national disaster or state or national disasters or emergencies that are unforeseen, but, what that did was put me right back to COVID. And I think that there are times when those exemptions would not apply. For instance, if you look at 2020, 2021, you have the start of the state of emergency over here

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: in March. What's the left side scale?

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: The, that is Yeah, zero to one hundred. This is hospitalizations. A little. Hospitalizations in Vermont over this time. So you can see in March, it starts out pretty large. It gets really low because we did, all of you did a fantastic job implementing our policies. You kept people out of the hospital. We saw it increase again after October and into the holidays of 2020, and then the state of emergency ended in, June or July of, 2021. And that's when we actually hit this crisis stage with Omicron coming in. And so our hospitals were just killed in all of this. Hammered, baby. Hammered. Killed is not a great gift. We don't want to associate that with hospitals, but we were hammered in all of this. And it was entirely foreseeable, you know, day in and day out. We knew that we were going to be hammered and that there were too many patients in the hospital. There was not a state of emergency in place, and there was, you know, none of the exemptions that are in this law would have applied to this scenario. So I just want to caution us, and you know, we are going through a pivotal moment in healthcare right now. I think it's really important. I know our hospitals all value our workforce and are willing to work with them, and I would like to ensure that we have the flexibility to continue moving forward in that space.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Sorry,

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I look like I'm squinting. Forgot my glasses. I'm trying to not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: put my glasses on.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I know that I struggle. But you said you hadn't heard about this issue. Did you ask? Did you submit it? I asked the coaching

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: officers what they have been hearing, and they were unsure where this came from.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Okay. I mean, you know we've debated this issue since I got here in 2009, and probably before that.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Yeah. I think a lot of people were feeling like these are in a lot of contracts that's been

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: managed. But it's not in all contracts. So can you share more about, you wanted it to what does it look like now in contracts that you want to protect?

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: I think it looks like what's negotiated for between labor and management and the contracts, they've come to an agreement with it, and I don't have the details of the contracts, but again, I haven't heard from our chief nursing officers that there's been, they were questioning what is driving this, what is the need, we feel like we have addressed a lot of this already.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: How did you address it?

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Through contract.

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: Through contract. Okay. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I'm just gonna-

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Then, I guess, what would be the concern if you feel like you've-

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: because this could, know, Porter has sixteen hours so this would Porter's contract potentially, unless there's legislation in there that supersedes Porter's contract, then maybe that causes a problem. I think there's a reason that Porter went to sixteen hours.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, I'm gonna when we take this up, if we if we take it up, we'll we'll discuss further.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just curious of the you say you represent nine of the 15 hospitals.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: I represent all of the hospitals.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I thought. Yes. Yeah. All of our hospitals have union contracts.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: Nine of the 15 are unionized.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Function without con without unions.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: That's my understanding, but I would wanna go back and check. That was, like, a quick survey.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you, Devin, so much. We're gonna turn to Helen Helen on the screen. Helen, is Helen on here?

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Oh, Helen's here. It's so good. Surprise. I work with the long term care.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Know. You know, you're worthy for your entry.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Help with agricultural matters.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We we think of her with agriculture.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I think of me with agriculture. Sorry. Apologies. I need my numbers for watching. Helen, it is so good to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have you. Welcome. Introduce yourself and your hat on. And we have a few minutes for, we'll take, Tucker, we're gonna just be about five more minutes. So if you'd be kind enough to address us, that would be great.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Yes, I can go quickly. So I'm Helen Leven. I'm Executive Director of Vermont Healthcare Association. We represent assisted living residences, residential care homes, and nursing homes in the state. So we have a deep workforce shortage as well, and if you were House Human Services, you would care a lot about that. The good news for this bill is that means I have a lot of research on nursing workforce and I can do quick turnaround testimony. So one important thing to know about the long term care setting and nursing workforce is that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: number one, but close

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: the to the number one reason why nurses say that they seek out that particular sector is the flexibility of scheduling. And so we talk a lot about scheduling, more than I really wanted to care about scheduling. And one element of it in this residential context is that unlike say a hospital, you have very distinct time periods with different activity levels because this is primarily at home for folks. And even in the residential care setting, for example, in the state regulations, there's a sleeping shift that's written in.

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: You have to

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: have one person awake, another person sleeping, but available if woken up. So there's really a lot of difference between what shift you're taking. And the most popular structure is two eights on, one eight off for three days. And so we know that folks are staffing differently in this residential context, that flexibility is highly prioritized and that the common forms of of providing us coverage does come in units that are outside of the parameters of this particular bill. Maybe it can be creepy just to show up to sleep. Maybe some people are doing that, but that's a standard way to structure those kinds of shifts. So we're concerned about that. We're concerned about the impact on our primary element of being attractive to nursing staff. And then additionally, there's some language in here that just doesn't necessarily match what you would be talking about in residential long term care setting. So, you know, the staying on during a medical or surgical activity, those are by and large, definitely not surgical, and to some extent, not even medical, the activities that many nurses are performing. No, you don't want someone to walk away in the middle of a surgery nor do you want them to walk away in the middle of assisting with bathing. But that would not be considered a medical or surgical activity. And then the last bit being, and Devin also mentioned that, that question of the narrowest of the definition of an unforeseen disaster or catastrophic event, potentially uniquely in nursing home and long term care sector, but maybe not uniquely With our workforce shortage, we have maxed out agency staffing capacity just to cover the shifts that are required. We have minimum staffing ratios. We have staffing ratios based on individual resident assessment. That's 20 fourseven. We've maxed out taxi for agency staffing to flex to cover that minimum without the disruption of a snowstorm or flu outbreak among staff. And so we do see times when you need to bring in staff to cover that you don't have that agency offloading option. Mandatory overtime, as I understand, is not common among nursing homes. I think a couple use it, so it's not a broad issue in that sense, but in the sense of this disrupting standard scheduling and contracting structures that are in place without anything super vital to replace them, that's where they're the big surpluses, Bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Any questions for Ellen? Ellen, it's great to have you

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: in this new capacity. You know, anytime you want to hear about long term care workforce, I got plenty of hesitation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, and one with the age of the legislature, I'm sure many of us will be very interested in.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Okay. Yes. You have some capacity to expand.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We do indeed. You all. We are now gonna really take a big shift to cannabis. So if anybody wants to stay for cannabis, we're gonna do forty five minutes on cannabis, and then we are gonna drop a break off, and we're gonna return to cannabis. So thank you all. JP, thank you. Great. Tucker, would you like to join us? So as Tucker joins us, Tucker has we've been working because of big bill, and we've been working to hone it a bit. And we have agreed the House has taken is taking out I mean, the Senate is taking out cannabis. The doctor's doing liquor and lottery. So we'll be getting their bill on the vices, and we are doing this bill and beginning it now. And it's a big bill, so we need to make some time for it, and it's a big bill to walk So, we're going to begin with Tucker and really try and understand what is being asked of in this bill. Just in

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: case you're free intellectually.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: This is the first time we've seen this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. And it is Oh. We've a new draft, and it is draft 1.1, I believe, of S-two 78, is

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: that correct? Yes. That is correct. Good morning, Tucker Anderson, I'm the site of counsel.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Hope that

[Sen. Joe Major (Windsor District)]: you have in front of

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: you. It, I mean, does it feel fair to say that Yes. That it's true. RAF one point one has an already introduced bill because you have had

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: input Because on we have, we have been working to hone it. I thought I'd said that. Okay. I just I did say that. We've been working to hone it. And because it was a very big bill and our time is sadly

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: But the but for people who are struggling to follow along, I don't think anything that was in the bill I've introduced was removed entirely as a subject matter. Would you say that?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: As a subject matter, that is true. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But it has been modified. It's been modified. Right. But the draft 1.1 is up on the website so people can follow-up on it. Great.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Our process is not that clear, so I'm trying to save myself and have No, conversation no.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So, today we are addressing this rep. Tucker, welcome. I will reset. Good morning, Tucker Andersen, my decided counsel. You should have in front of you draft 1.1 of a committee amendment to two past two seventy eight. You just heard, this contains all of the subject matter, the underlying bills introduced. There have been some sections that have been dense, particularly the permitting sections. There have been some scrivener's errors that have been corrected, and additionally, there's been some clarification throughout, in particular, aligning certain limitations, THC limitations, an example, with other surround facades, and I can certainly hear high quality tests found that from another grade. We will start in section one, and I provided reader assistance settings throughout the proposed committee attendance that you know the subject is to covered. The first couple sections deal with THC content packaging limits. Okay, how

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: do we pronounce that word?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The full word we're talking, usually talk about is THC. What, how do we pronounce it?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I will not be tricked into making that pronunciation attempt again, but I appreciate that the committee wants to hear me fumble stumble. No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Don't

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: epimentrohydrocannabinol? Isn't that hard?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is that right? Cannab.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Cannabinol. Thank you. You were practicing. Okay. So what's that? Then let's call it THC from now.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just talking about

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Nabinol? Nabinol? I said cannabinol. You said cannabinol? Sure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: There we go.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I will blame any mispronunciation on the fact that about 20% of my waking hours I am listening to or speaking in Danish instead of

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Oh, I thought you gonna say Peppa Pig or something. Yeah. I thought you were gonna say it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Peppa Pig is where I'll pronounce it. Section one. This amends seven BSA Section eight sixty eight relating to prohibited products. You will notice that in subsection B, uniformly throughout the THC limit or liquid concentrate cannabis products, is raised from 60% to 70%. There are some conforming amendments in here as well, eliminating references to integrated licensees, which I will cover later. There's a whole set of sections leading up title theft and eliminating that particular license category.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And this aligns us with?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Raising to 70% aligns with a few other New England states, and I know that the CCD has put a lot of effort into providing charts or comparing charts for the community that will show through a lot of states' patients, so I won't tread on the wonderful work of Moving our partners in state on to page two in section two. Subsection A, in cannabis establishment licensed under this chapter, shall not dispense or sell in her new language is in subsection B, cannabis products with greater than 60% THC to a person 25. So paired with the preceding session, the overall cap on THC content is being raised for those cannabis products from 60% to 70%. And that gap in the 60 to 70% range, there is now age requirement of 25 to purchase those extended range. So the 21 age saved was 60% or under 25 for 60 is

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Good. I realize now we're just sort of we're jumping into the very technical, which Catherine was very good at. As people have questions, you know, as the original author of Bill and we have the CCP here, But I really straight Paula Tucker is the person who's drafting this. No, you know, no knock to anyone who drafts for judiciary, but this is about a reciprocal market as well with the rest of New England, which makes things a lot easier for Right. Our for everyone in our state. Right. And so I just wanna be clear that these things, you know, if they look like they have they don't aren't based in any context for the most part, we are borrowing from pretty sound policy in places like Massachusetts or New York or Policy and experience.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I would say as we align, as we have spent some time in this committee discussing what will happen if the feds act in the next few months, how do we not only better align ourselves with New England, but how do we also look thoughtfully and try and prepare ourselves what may happen nationally? And so I'm hoping that when if we have time, Pepper will update us on his conversations. Pepper, are you hearing me? I am. Yeah, Chris. With updating us on those discussions as well. So a lot of this is trying to bring us in alignment either regionally or at some point, maybe federal.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And for the proceeding two sections, something that you might hear from the interspersed scenario is that there is some leeway with these percentages, so I'd recommend hearing what the kind of margin of error in that percentage is. If we're ready, we'll talk about section three, which amends seven BSA, section eight eighty one. This section deals with the rule making authority of the cannabis control board, and within this section, in subdivision K3A, there is provision that raises the THC milligram limit for a single package of cannabis products. So if you're with me, that's subdivision 3A. CCB is authorized to adopt rules, including requirements that a single package of the cannabis product shall not contain more than two hundred milligrams of THC.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: There's no limitation to both. Right now, it's one hundred milligrams of THC, just buy two bottles of this or two whatever's packages, there's no limitation. This is the

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: packaging limitation. There

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: are lots of limitations. There's point of sale limitation. What we'll get to.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There's concentration, there's packaging, and then there's transaction, which we'll get into. And then, overall with that, there's also possession limits, where there's civil penalties that increase depending on how much an individual possesses. Right. So we're into transactions. Thank you very much for the setup and segue. Alright, in section four, in seven BSA, section nine zero seven, in a single transaction, your retailer may provide two ounces of cannabis. I'm going to flag this phrase for this, because there's been a request for clarification of this raise, or the equivalent in cannabis products. Now this draft 1.1 does not propose what the statutory equivalent would be. The reason that I have not added this in here is that the committee needs to make a policy about what that equivalent in cannabis products would be, and likely hear about the quasi scientific way they would come to understanding what the equivalent response would be, and what other states have done. Right. So, Pepper, we're

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: gonna turn to you on that.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so two ounces in a single transaction, or the equivalent of the deposits. There are conforming amendments in the next couple sections. Section five amends ATVSA Section four thousand two thirty to increase the possession limits in Subdivision A1 to, no person shall knowingly and unlawfully possess more than two ounces of cannabis, that's because the transaction limit has increased, or more than 10 grams of actually, so both these is actually limits for cannabis should have decreased. Subdivision 2A, no person shall know thee, and unlawfully possess more than two ounces except this one, ten grams of fish. Similar conforming events are made in the PSA section 42 to 30A, section six, that's on page His possession limits are increasing again because of the absence the action that Rutland?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Sorry. I'm ask Rutland to testify to this, but I hope that the James Pepper will speak to how that compares to the neighboring states.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Now that's sort of a chief objective here is to align ourselves, that's I think what we've Now

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: we get to the very exciting portion of the bill on page five, section seven. We're gonna get into the permits, and specifically pilot programs for two new permits that the CCD has authorized to issue. The first is an event permit. Which will look familiar to this committee. Yes. All of this is proposed as new language, so in section seven, the new sections nine twelve, statute, title seven. First, subsection A, the board is authorized to grant event permits to licensed cannabis establishments in good standing, To bring us back to cannabis establishment as defined, it covers all of the various licensees under Title VII, so not just your tenant source. The holder of an event permit is authorized to oversee and administer a commercial event under procedures that are adopted by Notwithstanding Section E. 33, persons 21 years or maybe from older may consume cannabis or cannabis products added with an authorized person in this section. So eight thirty three covers consumption of publicness, so we can imagine that that has to be not withstood in order for that to be held in an area that would otherwise be prohibited by the police.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: And this, I mean, this doesn't have a lot of parameters around it, but at the statutory level, I don't think either does alcohol prevent permitting, and that DLL has a lot of authority in rule making it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: DLL does have flexible rule making authority around their various events permits, but I would say that the alcohol and beverage events permits are broken out into screening Yes. We started with art galleries. Sampling events, limited events, sorting, serving permits.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Maybe that's a good opportunity to say, I hope we don't do the same thing with a different industry because this is us having to go back every year and say, this is what a lot of farmers markets, etcetera, etcetera, and we have not had the kinds of problems that necessitate, I think, such statutory review every Some single

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: of the complication that is also involved, and I flagged this early on, in the alcohol beverage statutes, is that the state has chosen to adopt a three tier model, so there are different permits and licenses that are issued to various actors within the three tiers. It's also broken out by the amount that you can serve to an individual at the event and who is participating. There was, you know, just a couple sessions ago, a split between festival permits, which are really for manufacturers to provide their products to people who want to sample emic. Everyone's just there, for this stage. Then, otherwise, unlicensed entities, their whole day festival, would get what's known as a limited event. Now it'd be like the Banjo Festival, wanting to be able to have a beer. So that's how granular the event permitting has gotten. So this would give CCP authority Broad authority. Create rules around event records. And you can add policy choices to this as you wish. This starts with the framework your committee has worked on in the past, which is, again, fairly broad. It doesn't tie into specific locations, it doesn't tie into specific licensees, it grants discretion to the CCB to choose up to 10 permits annually to be issued here. 10 is a placeholder number that we'll get to later if the committee can raise or adjust. Alright, so under Subsection B, we get into eligibility for the Licensed Advocates. So the cannabis establishment is eligible to apply for an event permit, provided that the establishment submits a fee and an application demonstrating to the Board's satisfaction to report Subdivision one, the establishment has received written approval from the local cannabis control commission, or if there is no local cannabis control commission, this one. In addition, the local control commissioner the slide board can put conditions on the issuance of the event permit, which could include limitations appropriate to the public, in traffic, or a baby. Second, security plan to ensure that intoxicated persons, or persons 21 cannot access the space that is subject to and that the premises are secured of diversion or inversion, and lawfully may be used for the purpose of the defendant.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: May I just flag, I guess I have a question with what the CCB and their eliminating authority can do, because we don't refer, I mean, alcohol, in those event permits, we limit the consumption ability so that somebody because we know a person becomes intoxicated over a certain amount of alcohol that they have drunk at these event. We don't have a consumption. Is that do you do we is that envisioned here that the CTV would also have a consumption limit? Possibly.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: That be a policy choice for discussion. Okay. Remember there.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: It it's hard in the evolving market right now. They might we might have to come back to us. Yep. But we're gonna have a Okay. Just keep in mind, we did, like Yep. How much how many ounces of spirits can you taste at a farmer's market? Like, we can always Right. Return to this if

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we want. I I I know.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So you have on private

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But a good point of just on this note of witnesses. We are having a hearing next week on this subject joint with the house because they will be taking this bill after us, and we are collecting witnesses. Kesha has provided some way of gun and some CCB has. We have a a a robust witness list. We're gonna devote an hour and a half to that next Wednesday morning first thing. So just a heads up that thinking your brain as we go through this, who would be the best witness, not analyst one. Sorry. Are you okay? Yeah. I dropped the barbell.

[Chris Newby (President, Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: I told you she

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: They're kind of weapon.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I was gonna say you took It's huge. I don't want a bump indication to do anything. But I just want to remind us that we're, give us a heads up that we're doing that.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm very excited for it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know, I know.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Talking about some of the consumption limits that exist in the alcohol and beverages space, there are more of these specific types of permits, depending on where it's being held, what the permit is. There are limitations on what can be consumed at that particular event, but recall that that doesn't extend out to all of the license licenses that are available. So first and third class licenses, it's all based on licensee education, which is another thing that the community could look at in this context. There's also no overarching possession limit for alcohol and drug abuse state, but there is here within the campus statutes limitations on individual transactions, on content, and on possessions. Different from the state you'll be working with. Right. These policy choices. All righty. Subdivision three is another component that has to be submitted with the application for the permit and the product sale plan that describes the quantities and types of cannabis and cannabis products that will be offered for sale, and how the cannabis will be transported, monitored, secured, displayed, and sold in conformity to state law and or rules of jurisdiction. Fourth, capacity to administer and enforce the required plans, and confirmation that the applicant has secured services to a county law enforcement agency or a private security provider licensed under Title 26. Fifth, proof of commercially reasonable assurance for the proposed event, and finally, Substitution six, compliance with any other health and safety requirements the Board may prescribe for the particular event or location, and then we have an including, but not limited to, including limits on attendees or types of products that may be consumed on the event site. So the board has some discretion for this subdivision to add some additional restrictions. Okay. Subc, restrictions. So, the board shall not issue more than 10 event permits in Union. Recall that these sections are set up as a two year plaza. An event permit shall be valid for a single event, not to exceed twenty four hours, at a single access control location. Permits shall not be issued for a location at which alcoholic beverages are sold or furnished or on premises consumption. So, a first or third class liquor licensee could not pull an event permit from the CCA meeting or their bar or restaurant space. The holder of an event permit shall sell only registered adult use cannabis, cannabis products, events in fuel markets. One thing to play Like that, About the way that that sentence about the restrictions related to alcoholic beverages is that it's at a location in which alcoholic beverages are sold or charged for off premises consumption. That could include the farmer's markets, and it's something you may want to clarify if the intent was to have this event permit also sent to those spaces. There might need to be some tweaking in that sentence to clarify that if there's a fourth class alcoholic beverage licensee selling samples of their distilled spirits at the farmer's market, it would qualify the entire defense expense. We're on page seven, subsection D, penalties for noncompliance. Deviation from the security and sales plans, product, tracking, taxation requirements, or permit permits shall be a violation that's subject to adverse licensing action. Subsection E, cannabis establishments shall be assessed a fee of $1,000 to apply for an event permit, of which 50% will be distributed to the host municipality and 50% to the cannabis regulation above the time. So, we have procedures. Is the committee familiar with the difference between procedures and rules under the administrative procedures.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Perhaps you'd like to clarify. So

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: rules are lawyers. It comes up quite a bit in the realm of devices, specifically monitoring. So, procedures do not go through the formal rulemaking process. They are typically adopted for internal regulation of a public agency. They do not require by default public hearings, and they do not typically have the force of law. But in the context of lottery, sports wagering, and a few other limited examples, the General Assembly has allowed state agencies to adopt procedures that do have the force of law, and you have sometimes required that they follow some public hearing procedures for adopting those procedures that have the force of law. What you see in subsection F is very similar to what the state has established for the lottery and sports group. So the board shall adopt procedures pursuant to three VSA section eight thirty five to govern the event permits issued pursuant to this section, including any application procedures, event site restrictions, security requirements, associated forms, and permitting selection process. So really, those last two components would be typical for procedures. Some of the others on that list would be typical for rules, but here you're giving them public. Sure. Yeah, I'll ask.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Before you go much further, can we just go back to E really quick? Do you know of any other comparable where the E amount would be somewhat scaled or relative to the size of the event? I'm just wondering, are all events really equal or are there's that we could anticipate or contemplate that would be massive? The the review process would involve a lot more than, say, these small farmers market on a Saturday morning.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a great question, Tim. Know that particularly for sports wagering, we've had a lot of questions about matching the fees to the regulatory burden. It's a good question to ask the CCP. Yeah. You know, what they're envisioning for this process. Some of the event permits in the alcoholic beverages space are $70 You know? So the burden on DLL to monitor and enforce at the bottom of smart bed location might be different from some of the sampling events where So we resort to a huge place, growing people all over the region. Or running the festivals on the waterfront where you might have, you know, 60 different vendors and DLL agents that are doing check ins. Well, when they're going to need them,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: entertainment venue and convention center. Oh, yeah, that's right.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: You. So, subdivision one, for each procedure proposed to be adopted, the board shall publish the proposed procedure on their website, in bold, not fewer than two public hearings, at which the person's publicly seeking additional information was acknowledged. Subdivision two, the board shall not be required to initiate a rulemaking. Procedure that is adopted pursuant to this section shall have the enforce of law and be binding on all persons who apply for the event

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: permit. So, the event permit there covers a broad range of potential events. Much broader than we just just to remind ourselves, much broader than what we were looking at last year and

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: where we were really just looking at piloting a sort of farmer's market style event for cannabis. All of the requirements of this session are the same as what was proposed by Russ. Right, but I feel like we were really just focused on that pilot. So, one of the things that I flagged for you is that the placeholder cap on the number of permits that would be issued to this is 10, so that is ten twenty four hour events that could be issued to this. Total. Not 20 that twelve hour could be different cannabis establishments that require those permits. It's not for a series of events, so those are all considerations for the committee if you have different policy choices to think about the number of permits that could be issued, whether it's a limit on the number of permits that could be issued to an individual licensee. It's going to be up to the discretion of the CCG if they adopt the procedures. Right. So rule making, entire section we just heard, CCB would do rule making on? They would adopt procedures to implement the program during the two year period, and you will get to rule making in just a bit. Okay, but we didn't deal with rule making in B. Those were the procedures. Oh, know. Get to the APA rules after we cover section nine Got it. Alright. Section nine thirteen contains We're page. We're on page Page eight. Section eight, page eight, right at the top.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Doctor. Hallwell. Right. Delivery

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: permits. The board is authorized to grant delivery permits to cannabis establishments. Again, fraud, includes any of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the licensees under that definition. Yeah. I mean, this is just yet another example of something that just might explode depending on what the feds decide to do.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Right. And so, I mean, we is so I'll say a couple of things because I'm so we've given you a look. Oh, dear. You know, I I expect this to be a longer term conversation. I I yield to the chair about how much time we have this session to discuss how delivery could or would unfold, I think there are questions of what we have control over to some extent. I think Massachusetts has had a sort of rocky experience with delivery that we should learn from. Yeah. I think this is an area that I hope people will also think flexibly about when it comes to the current atmosphere with alcohol. There is a lot of power concentrated among the wholesalers and distributors, and distributors, there are now two left in the state, I think, for alcohol. So not only do we hear about that being a very constrained access and service and etcetera, even though I'm not saying they do a poor job, but if they decide they're no longer carrying a particular spirit or bottle of wine, we hear about that. You know, we this is a it's always an ongoing conversation that we have in alcohol too about who can deliver or how we can get products directly to consumer. So I don't want us to close off our minds to how to improve what delivery and direct to consumer looks like Exactly. Now and in future conversations. I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: believe am I wrong in believing that with medical cannabis, have a delivery option?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I understand that there is a delivery option for emergency treatment for people.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we do have a delivery option for staff using. Data.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So just to be clear, this is not about section, this is about wholesale. This is about

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: retail, just Yes. Okay. Right. And that they're already delivering to the retailer.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: And that, you know, you it it would probably be a stackable permit for a already very regulated entity that has, you know, other permits like a repo.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: let's As we move through this, one of the things that I'll note is that the structure of this permit is based off of the existing retail delivery permit for alcohol and beverages, which is exclusive to second class licensees. Consent in that statutes with me if you would like to take a look at it. Subsection B is permit terms and restrictions. So limitation in the first sentence, 10 of these permits may be issued annually by the police. The older the permit may deliver cannabis and cannabis products sold from the licensed premises for consumption off the premises to an individual who's 21 years age or older, provided

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: going back one second, to your point, medical cannabis, there is a delivery mechanism.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I believe so. Pepper, are we wrong?

[James Pepper (Chair, Vermont Cannabis Control Board)]: James Pepper, the record, no, there's delivery happening right now in Vermont from medical dispensaries to medical patients.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I think they, I think at least some medical representatives might like to come in and talk to how that could be improved also, frankly, and this bill doesn't address medical currently,

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: but as you know,

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I think there is a desire to make sure that that moves in as humane and efficient and expansive a way as possible as well.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Be happy to talk to

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: org about that form of delivery.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. And I have we have a robust witness list, so I'm gonna but I'm gonna add medical too.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Or Okay. I I think maybe some people that I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: sent would be prepared to speak. Yeah. Okay. Great.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Tucker. We're gonna move into the five provisos here that outline the limitations of this permit. So first, delivery shall only be made by the permit holder or an employee or agent of the permit holder. So this would not be third party services. Deliveries shall only occur between the hours of 9AM to five They shall only be made to a physical address located in Vermont. An employee or agent of a delivery permit holder shall not be permitted to make deliveries unless the employee has completed a training program that is approved by the CCPA. In context of alcoholic beverages, that's training to identify if the person receiving the delivery is already on the scene. It's the right age. It's the right age, identity, the imperilmentations, things like that. And they also have to have a license to drive those big truckers. There are couple licenses for them. Although, in this case, the retail delivery permits, it's more like a minivan, you know, like Yeah. Exactly. It's a little lighter. It's in fact, I think that this entire permitting structure, when it was actually for alcohol and beverages, was for gift baskets, seasonal gift baskets that the retailers would put together and deliver the product.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: Let's please leave for over twenty years of nibbling away at prohibition.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, more than

[Ellen Kay (Co-President, UVM Staff United, AFT)]: that. Right, a 100%. 100%. So then he finally decided to

[Devon Green (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems)]: do something about it, and we're still doing it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we've been involved in

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: it for the Okay. Last It cannot be for resale. So the products that are delivered are not intended for resale. They're intended for first tenders. We're on to page nine in subsection C. The annual fee is $100 And we're dollars 100, and we're not doing more than 10 a year, is that right? That is right. And and

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: 10

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: so here's a question I have, I guess, that we can get it from Pepper, which is 10 a year and then that keeps growing. So it's not just 10 a year, but it could be 10 more the next year. So it

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: could be 20. It could could grow. During the pilot, based on how this is structured, it would be 10 in a given year Period. For the two years. Period. 10 per year. Okay. Period. Okay. Thomas?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Do do we have any concern about geographic concentration? You know, do we wanna put it here in the parameters? Chittenden County doesn't get all 10 of these? Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They're all going to run.

[Note on overlapping identity for Speaker 4]: I I will say the original bill didn't have just 10 because I trust that this could be worked out so that we're not the the the reason we have this fight last year is because we constrained how many participants could be in the pilot so much that everybody got concerned they wouldn't be allowed to do this. I don't think we need a limit of 10.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. That's a subject for discussion. It would mark it

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: under her as subject for discussion.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I mean, Chittenden can take all 10 if you want, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it's Yeah, just Rutland's already vying for it. Let's do more than

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: We can move through subsection D because it contains the exact same procedures language that's covered in the procedure section. Right. In section nine, we are getting now the rule of So on or before 07/01/2027, so not this coming July, but the next, the board shall initiate rule making to adopt rules governing the permits established in section seven and eight. That's the eligibility permits. Subsection we have eight reports that the general assembly will receive after rulemaking has been initiated towards the end of the pilot program. So we're letting

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the pilot run for a full year, two years, well, a year, and then you're gonna initiate rulemaking?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So halfway through the pilot, they will initiate goal making and deliver a report prior to the start of the legislative session. So that report is due on 11/15/2027, and the board shall submit a review of House, Government Operations and Military Affairs, and this committee concerning the permits established in Section seven and eight, shall include a concise assessment for benefits, challenges, and administrative liability of the permit programs, and the Board may recommend best practices for security, inventory tracking, tax enforcement, permit administration, local government coordination, and optimizing market access for small cultivators. Finally, the board shall recommend updates to statutes governing events for instance, delivery permits, including whether either statute should be repealed on the date set by this act. And at the end, the pilot expires on 07/01/2028, So so there is a prospective repeal of these sections built in. Once the general assembly comes back, decides to extend the program or codify it in that regard.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, given that we're about to dive in with serious subject I mean, not serious subject, but a fairly good sized area. Why don't we take our break now before we launch into cannabis advertising? Why don't we take our break? And we will be back at eleven to at eleven to finish going through the bell. Is that okay? That's perfect. That's perfect. I'm advertising covering. I don't see anyone.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Resisting? Resisting. I think it's a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: great day. I think I'm ready too.