Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: From the from the vaping bill, we're trying to answer Randy and David's questions at. We'll vote on it when Kesha gets bad. So that is the only interruption of this bill addressed. And so I am are now live. Welcome, everyone, back to senate economic development and returning our attention to the consumer protection part of our jurisdiction is the basically, the prevention from addiction of yet another substance of nicotine and our old friend reducing the alarming rate of teenage addiction to nicotine through tax pieces that we're going to be looking at with the tax department for the first to introduce yourself and

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: go from there. Bill,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: so tax is implicated in a in a workplace. Well, very welcome in this space. I think that, you know, we've, over the years, like, become very aware that the licensure information is a really key piece of DLL's enforcement and regulation in this space. So it's a little awkward when that's considered confidential tax data. And, you know, we've had ways to work through that, but we'll be much more streamlined if DLL is, you know, for Let's anchor ourselves in what sections we're talking about. Right. Because there are a bunch of things. There's licensure and there's tax. And we're hearing from the Department of Labor on some of the licensure pieces too. Yeah. So anchor us in the section. I have Jen is Jen Harvey joining us? She did. She did. Yeah. Yeah. Because she we were just singing. Oh, a plug. Statehouse singers are singing at 03:30 in the chamber when the chamber starts. And I have my so our our section by section that Jen Carvey did for us, sadly, does not have the sections on it. But it is we do have a summary of the sections, but just not the sections to anchor ourselves in. But we do have I will remind the senators, we have a section by section. This is section 18. I'm jumping right ahead. Right. So this this licensure responsibility is actually in this bill contemplated as a report that PACS and DLL would, you know, prepare and bring back to the committee. And I've you know, I I think you're hearing from DLL later today, and you'll hear the same thing from them that we really, like, we're we're ready to make this transition effective July, July 2027. I think they need some time to, you know, set up their infrastructure for it being the licensing. But we, you know, we know at this point that this is a a logical transition, and I think it thinks it makes a lot of sense. So, you know, would suggest that we don't, the committee, like, not need a formal report from us, hope that our, testimony and alignment would would provide that certainty that this is a good move. We all agree with. One thing that that section does contemplate is also having us report back on moving the whole taxation over to DLL. Neither department thinks that's necessary. It's, you know, very kind of like normal for us to manage the tax of an industry that gets regulated elsewhere. This happens with, you know, cannabis, hazardous waste, insurance premiums, like, pretty, you know, standard force for us. And, you know, I think we're handling the taxation piece as well at the tax department and so does DLL. So I think, you know, I can kind of give the spoiler of what next year's report would be, which is that we absolutely think that DLL should be responsible for the licensing and would appreciate keeping the taxation in our house. That's what we do best. And my understanding is that you So that is the the work you're gonna work on. You're gonna work work back on the on the on this on the whole move. Correct. So that's what's requested on section 18. My recommendation would be to just repeal that reporting requirement and go ahead and legislate that Department of Liquor and Lottery will take over licensure effective 07/01/2027. And I think you'll you'll hear that same recommendation from Commissioner Knight Liquor today. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Replacing section 18 is something to the effect of what you just said. Exactly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we just need our our if you could find out where Jenny is. I mean, we knew where she was two minutes ago. Yes. So, she does have to testify to the latest this morning because she's trying to talk it. Okay. So we will if if DLL is interested in it's that sounds like a natural move. Yeah. And not let's not study it. Let's just do it. That that'd be our expectation. Yeah. And that is, is that makes sense to the rest of the advocates in the room? Yeah. Okay. Great. Should yeah. Let them do it. That sounds that sounds good. And, but keep it but, Department of Tax is keeping all the tax the tax work. That sounds very reasonable. Great. Good. Vision of labor. Great. Yes. Agree. Anything else that you I mean, that is- further on the wanting to further study how you're going to do the stamp tech, the stamping and all the other pieces? Yeah. That is a section that I'd love to spend some time with the committee about. Well, here's your opportunity. Yeah. Yeah. So section eight, it needs a new system that requires stamping up. Okay. Yeah. Because he's the section eight. I just need to get it myself. It is page Yeah. It is page 18. Right, so this is basically introducing a new system of stamping tobacco products that aren't just the standard cigarette packages, these would include like vapes and a myriad other things that we often do great work on, that have a variety of sizes and packaging styles and also potencies. There's, like, you know, a number of practical administrative concerns about applying, like, the stamp format to such, like, a diverse set of products, I mean, I'd be interested I will be interested to hear what y'all have to say about this as well. We haven't we haven't gone deep on this topic yet, but, you know, from our perspective well, first of I guess I'll speak to the timing here. The bill has this or, like, asked for this to be stood up in, like, this July, and that effective date wouldn't be possible for for any changing stamp because this is a well, for instance, this would be, like, a first in the nation move to have stamped on vapes. So there's, like, you know, kind of, like, the initial design work of, like, what's the shape that works for the industry or, you know, something. I don't yeah. I I have a lot to worry about this industry in general, but, you know, lots of little nuanced shapes. I understand this is a pretty heavy lift. Yeah. Does it make more sense actually for you to study this and spend some time working this out and coming back with a report to the, on how you, really coming back to the legislature with a recommendation on how to do it, because this does sound fairly complicated and involved. And if we're gonna be first in the nation taxing by differential amounts of nicotine in something, that's what I believe is being done here. Is that correct? Yeah. And that's actually I need to learn more about if we would be first in the nation in that respect. Like, I'm thinking about using stamps as of, like, the mechanism for flagging tax on, you know, on products that are just, like, you know, coming in a wider variety than just a cigarette pack. So I do think, you know, it's inter what you're proposing is interesting, and let let me, like, talk through some of the concerns that we're to get. It's actually would benefit from further work. We certainly don't, quite honestly, we don't have the time to, before process- Of of course. To dig into the practicalities and the tax shifting to this. Because right now we tax on weight and volume, right? I mean, so to move to committee to taxing by the amount of nicotine in something is a totally new way of doing it. Right. And there's a layer of wholesaler price, I believe, too, in this tax structure. Yeah. Right. So those two things. So it's an excise, sort of an ex version of it.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And the bill does you know,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think, like, the bill allows the, commissioner to kind of, like, determine you know, that that's, like, you know, that study work is what would be happening in house as we, like, determine what's, like, the best way to do it. So we could, you know, we can talk about if it makes sense to make that a formal legislative report. But in general, the kind of things that, you know, we would need to stand this up is, you know, we put out an RFP for contracting for a stamp vendor, and then there's this kind of, like, novel design component there, which, you know, will be new, not just like, oh, like, make make more of the stamps we already do. That kind of The stamps, just in case people don't appreciate the value of the stamps, I understand that when the flooding happened in 2023, the first thing the tax department did was head to the basement to get the stamps. Stamps had to go to the basement.

[Unidentified Vermont Department of Taxes representative]: And then there was, like, a whole, yeah, a whole, like, process around deciding where to put this very valuable role of stamps in our, you know, emergency operations space, which is not, you know, designed with, the same security baselines that our department was.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, it is The after action report. Place stamps on 3rd Floor.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Nothing is in our basement, and I understand it's gonna be filled with concrete, so that'll keep the building from flooding, right? Yes, yes. No Kansas trips, Some good five capsule Well, potential in there

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I guess your question is, is it a good idea to have a delay built in to give you a time to work through what else could go wrong?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I think certainly, but I have I have some more fundamental questions about, like, whether it's a good idea to use stamps in this context. Like, you know, whatever whatever the new tax structure is for these types of products, you know, like, kind of putting that policy question aside. You know, we have some, you know, just, like, practical questions as to whether stamps are, like, the way to if they really have a role to play in helping enforcement here. Let me just, like, draw a comparison to the cigarette industry or, you know, cigarette products right now, which is their standardized pack and carton sizes, standard number of cigarettes per pack. So, like, the pack and the tax is very straightforward. It's, you know, a levy per cigarette. But a stamp goes on each standard pack, and then, like, the utility there is that, like, ELL or tax, you know, enforcement will come into a store, look at all the merchandise, see it's all stamped, and they're like, great. We know that a a Vermont wholesaler has, you know, charged appropriate tax on this, and this retailer has paid that tax. You know, that's it's kind of like a, you know, line of sight enforcement check, which is great. So if you compare that to, like, the nuance tax structure that this bill is considering, like, this proposal you know, there would be two different rates based on concentration, and there's also, you know, like, a wholesale prices worked into this. So, you know, as far as enforcement goes, if we have, you know, just, like, one one stamp that is, like, you know, kind of indicating, like, yes, tax was paid, it only tells part of the story. You know, an enforcement person could go into a store and see a stamp, but they don't know if that's, like, the right stamp that's that tax was charged correctly for the potency. They don't know what the wholesaler price was and if the tax was levied appropriately for that. You know, it's just much more complicated than, like, yeah, there's a certain number of cigarettes in this pack, and tax was paid. So That You know? Yeah. That so, like, you know, you know, what, like, a a tax auditor would do in this case, and, you know, what I think, like, a a GLF compliance officer would be much more information for from is saying, like, hey. Can I see the invoices from this product so I can see what the potency is and what makes you pay your wholesaler? You know? So I would propose, given all the challenges you've cited, that we turn section eight into a work that the department we would charge you with all the stakeholders and whoever we need to loop in to really have a full discussion of how we actually manage this and what might be the right way to capture what the objective is, is to raise, obviously, raise the price of these so that we try and reduce well, the addiction and therefore the cost. Remember, we have to look at this holistically. The cost to this state of tobacco addiction nicotine addiction is enormous. Not quite as high as the cost at state of alcohol abuse. But hundreds of millions of dollars the state is paying to treat nicotine addiction and tobacco addiction. So if we're trying to be thoughtful about taxpayer dollars, we're trying to be thoughtful about how we tax this to affect behavior. That's what we're trying to do. So I would recommend that you that we work you work with Jen Carvey and whoever else wants to have input on what this study would entail and come back to us next week with some language on what the study would entail and when you think you can complete it. Makes some sense. Yeah, no, absolutely. I think it definitely makes more sense to, like, study how, how stamps would serve, you know, the, the policy goals that you just laid out, of this new tax regime, know, if it, if it's necessary to have a stamp component to that, we're just Well, if there's a twenty first century, I mean, I think all of us would be open to twenty first century solution to to this. Maybe it's not a a stamp. Maybe it's something else. Maybe it's some laser thing. You know? Who knows? But I think that that maybe that some more time and more eyes need to be brought to bear Yeah. On this proposal. And in terms of eyes, I think, like, you know, PLL has an incredible amount of experience and expertise here, and, you know, and hopefully they're on the verge of aligning, you know, their licensing authority with their enforcement responsibility, which really, like, puts them in a great position, I think, to consider what's most effective to them in enforcement of this whole system, especially oversight of product movement from wholesalers to retailers, which is really where it stands. That's the to exercise. So I think like, you know, absolutely if this was gonna become a study, it would really just now love to work with VLL on that. And And would love ENG's office would I mean, who else needs to be involved? But think you think about it and let's Quit the barrier. Yeah. But I was a barrier. David brought section eight talking about the stamping of and the taxing by differential amounts for concentrations of nicotine. And I'm proposing that we actually move this because we do not have the time to get into the minutiae of how this would work, nor does finance have the time to then take it up. I would propose that we do this as a study, DLL and tax, coming back to the legislature either. I can't remember. I mean, what would be appropriate as soon as as soon as you were able? Let's work on the date and we can the advocates may also want to

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: have somebody to go down that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Do that. Just like, you know, I'm thinking aloud here, which is always a little risky, but you know? So I think it's not ready for front desk. A study is definitely a prudent step. Like, another alternative would be to give ELL the, you know, authority to, you know, like, create, recommend, impose a SNAT system should they feel that that is, like, important to their regulation of the wholesaler to- The combination of tax, which is currently doing a deal. Well, I meant, like, in place of a study, you know, they could just, like, initiate or something. But I guess we're I would actually think it needs to be actually thought out. And because it's a tech because it would be levying packs on Vermonters, it needs to come back to legislature. So not I don't I think the all just doing it isn't necessarily what we want. Yeah. Sorry. I'm, like, very much separating the tax treatment, which is absolutely yeah. Like, this needs to happen in this building. Maybe both sides do. But then with, like this is really more of, like, an administrative tool whether or not this tax structure is reflected in a stamping requirement. Right? It's like a and it's an enforcement tool of a tax structure that could go in with or without it. But it gives you the opportunity to actually rethink the tax the stamp system altogether and maybe come up with something even better. So opportunity. Yeah. It is. Well, I think it's an opportunity to rethink something that just because we've always done it the same way, it? I mean, we have to continue. We just need to accomplish the same objective. Right. Right. Yeah. So so happy to participate in that. And and, yeah, that would be great. So we will I'm sorry, Jen isn't here, but we will work on that. Then if you could be in touch with Jen, then we could Absolutely. On that. I can initiate that outreach too, and I'm sure we'll hear about it too. Yeah. Happy to be true. Happy to. And I can't remember if the is that the last section that you that I think the are those the two things? Yeah. Those are kinda like the two big, you know, administrative issues that I wanted to flag. So, you know, 18, just to go back for David's review, we're going to just let DLL do the licensure piece. Right? For we're gonna your your proposal is to just let bills instead of studying it, just they they they will create they they'll transition to a new form of licensing. So that also we could you might propose new products and language for Jeff to Sure. Yeah. No. We're happy to happy to support with that transition. So instead of studying it, we're gonna hear from DLL intact. So I think everyone's ready just to let DLL do this. Right. And study it. And instead, study how we would impose an excise tax or whatever we're gonna call it, the the wholesale tax and the stamping system for a new way of taxing, really, which is by concentration rather than buying for rates. Hey. So is that summed up? Yeah. Yeah. I think, like, you know, from our administrative perspective, that's sort of our big issues here. Not just administrative, but hopefully. Yeah. To be on the most effective way to

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: do it. Sure. Sure. Sure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Like, on the I think there you know, these are important policy questions. I'm sure, you know, if not not surprising this committee that, you

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: know, that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to know that the governor isn't particularly interested in increased taxes and fees in this space. So, you know, from a a policy perspective, this would certainly be May not be. But I think he would be thrilled at reducing the cost to taxpayers of this insidious, you know, opportunity. No. So I No question that this is a big big nut. This is a huge drag on our budget.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I think this makes a lot of sense doing some quick googling. It looks like very no other states started to stay out of the base, but they do these compliance registries so that effectively acts as the digital standard of enforcement. They they have opted primarily for ad valoreal percentage taxes. Yeah. How to study it.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Awesome. Yes. Are you ready?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: No. I'm ready.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm ready on this. Should have to stop it, so I appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you for the time, David. I think I think that's a productive way for us to Right. Forward and Thanks. Yes. For this year. Yeah. Gives the governor a breather out of there.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And then you've got But Do you

[Unidentified attendee (gallery)]: guys sign a tax increase?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: He absolutely has. I've been here when he's done it. Absolutely. But I I think this one is complicated by the cause that that is heard. Any comments from the most invested here in the gallery? Rose, do you have any thoughts? Jill, Tina? Okay. This sounds good. Did you agree with sort of the direction of this, letting DL license? And I know. That's not okay. But Jen is gonna be here. I think Jen's. Thanks. That's our largest on the panels. Queer living in hope. It's for the moment, but Jen will occupy You can answer the table. Yeah. Right. You can. Exactly. So, okay. So everybody's okay with that? Right. Yeah. Any thoughts, Jill? Jill's on

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: top. Erin representing Nicole as she put back in Vermont. This seems to make the most sense. Just reminding the committee that the tax stamp on tobacco substitutes would not raise any tax. It's only that the products that are over five milligrams of nicotine, that would be the only area where there'd be any potential tax increase, and that is to really flag the very high nicotine products.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So with that, we have five minutes before we're gonna switch to labor. Any any pressing comments from the from our new members visiting? Live?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: No, ma'am.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No comments. Okay. And

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, let's take a break for five minutes until we have Sophie and oh, Sophie's here. Oh, sorry. Sophie's here. So, Sophie, why don't you come join us? Sophie. We're moving to 02:30. They were not gonna take a vote until Kesha joins on that joint rules. We're coming back to tobacco. We're just needing to get this bill out. Okay. Gentlemen, you had concerns about self attestation. That is the only piece, I believe, that is still I think we're okay. My understand my understanding is we're fine with the rest of the bill, but that there are the the self attestation is continues to be a challenge for some members of our committee. I would just remind us, we passed this exact language last year.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I mean We didn't all

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: agree. What?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: We didn't all agree on that aspect of that bill You know? Next year. Yeah. I Just because it passes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Correct. Thank you. I can't although you know what, David, I don't hold those votes in my head, so I I can't remember that we

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: There is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So you're being consistent with where you are on it. Okay. So you are a no on that section?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yes, ma'am. Quick section.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sophie. I'm just trying to 02:30. I've got

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: see

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Alright.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: Take care.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's two here. Oh, I'm not sure. Lighting builds here there. Sophie's pulling it up. So, am I correct in before Sophie's pulling it up? Am I correct that people are okay that the committee is okay with the first two with the first piece of of two thirty?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That in front of me. Yeah. I don't I don't have any. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I click on two thirty. I don't see the draft 2.1

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: show up in the the public.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have draft 2.1, I think. So we we all have, and she did a summary of it. But sometimes be in a function. So I believe the first section draft 2.1, which is the aligning teachers with the federal with the federal unpaid family leave act. Right. I'm really bad. That people didn't have a problem with that. We did and we found out that the only two other occupations that are eligible for this alignment are It's teachers and an airline flight crew.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So Yeah. Of them afraid of folks that we Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And and then so, Sophie, take it away. Am I correct in understanding? Nobody had

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: a problem with it. Right. Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: No. They don't. If you're do a section by section through this goes forward, how would you summarize succinctly what this is really doing?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: This is allowing, teachers who are eligible under the federal, medical leave act to be eligible under the Vermont Parental Family Leave Act. There's different eligibility criteria between the two acts. Okay. And they're allowed again, because their hours are are different as our airline crew, there's a special provision for them at the federal level that allows them to be covered by the FMLA. And so what this is doing for both the airlines, flight crews, and now for the teachers just saying if you qualify under the federal definition, you're going to qualify under the state definition.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: And there's no other groups in the federal legislation that calls out the duty group or the board group because of their work out.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Those were the two that had this special rule as far

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: as I could tell. Is anybody else doing this near the state?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have a special, but I don't know.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I'm not you know, this is first time I heard of this this year with this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, we did it last year for the airlines. Right.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, the airline I'm aware of, I'm saying anybody else, anybody else in the world treat teachers that you like.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know that off the top of my head. I think because you did

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: it for the airline crew and that dedicated session on the The crew was a special situation. Well known that there were different rules because the backbone thinks that they don't get paid until the There plane takes are a lot of things that are unique. But I wonder why should they be so unique to teachers as opposed to other professions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think it's because teachers don't teach all year long, they're unique in that they are, like airplane pilots, they are unique in that they have sporadic employment. Employing all kinds

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: of people who have Exactly. Seasonal That's my point is that there are lots of people who have periodic employment that is seasonal in nature or based on certain circumstances. Why are the teachers different?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. This is in law and it calls out these occupations and so I think as much as possible we can we should align them all.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So the federal laws, that's my question. Is there a conflict right now where they would qualify federally but not at the state level that we're resolving by synchronizing these students?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So right now, they qualify at the federal level if they meet the federal definition here as do the online group, if they meet the federal definition. Like, again? So right now, full time teachers would qualify for FMLA if they meet the special definition that's in the code of federal regulations for teachers, same as for airline flight crew. And so what happened in the last session was scooping in the airline flight crew and saying, If you qualify for FMLA under federal regulations, you will be deemed to qualify under the state or under the PFLA. And so the request this session was to, if you've done it for airline crews, can you also do them for teachers? So that's what this proposed amendment is doing with the European teachers that qualify under the code of federal regulations.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Rich and and I think it was our bad. Last year, we didn't have what other professions, and we should have done this. We could have done this last year and just done it all at

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: one time. But he didn't. Well, who else under this that may qualify? If we follow the same

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: logic. Nobody would have. That's what Sophie's found out.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So my yeah. My understanding of the FMLA is that these are the two special categories, that you're not gonna have a parade of other people coming in and saying, me too, me too.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This federal definition referenced? I'm fine with this, but I'm try we're getting ready to vote this thing. Yeah. I just wanna know

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Write about what we're potentially getting into those and why.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So federal definition is, like, 50 pages long, or is it relatively short that we're synchronized with? You have that quickly.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I I didn't have it. I think I may even have it on.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We're you're looking to vote this out today. Is

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: that correct?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay. So then I think this is valid conversation.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. Some of the questions you've answered was

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: 08:30 tomorrow morning too. I'm sorry. But you're the spot. Sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's okay.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: You're gonna I'm

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: not gonna repeat that. Well, I can say that.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I can Google it too.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I have it. I have it already for the when we went walked through this the last time, but I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: put it. Yeah. Just It's

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: not it's not huge. And it but I put the actual cross reference in there. Said You did in your reference? Yes. No. In the bill. Oh, right. Because it says full time teachers as defined by. So eight two five point eleven one zero c three

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So then it says that

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: States, in the event an employer does not maintain an accurate record of hours worked by an employee, including for employees who are exempt from FLSA's requirement, that rep will be kept at their hours worked, the employer has the burden of showing that the employee has not worked their requisite hours. An employer must be able to clearly demonstrate, for example, that full time teachers see section 825.102 for definition of an elementary or secondary school system or institution of higher education or other educational establishment or institution who often work outside the classroom or at their homes did not work twelve fifty hours during the previous twelve months in order to claim that the teachers were not eligible for FMLA leave. So, that's basically it's just shifting the burden. So, the burden is going to be on the employer to clearly demonstrate that they do not qualify. And then again, the definition of a teacher, teacher or employee employed in an instructional capacity or instructional employee meets an employee employed principally in an instructional capacity by an educational agency or school whose principal function is to teach and instruct students in a class, small group or an individual setting, and includes athletic coaches, driving instructors, and special education assistants such as signers for hearing impaired. The term does not include teachers assistants or aids who do not have as their principal function actual teaching or instructing, nor auxiliary personnel such as counsellors, psychologists, curriculum specialists, cafeteria workers, maintenance workers, bus drivers, or other primarily non instructional employees?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I don't have any concerns, so now I just have a better understanding of what it would do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: My sense was that we

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: were fine with this section. It goes the same question that we've been asking. What? The question is, are teachers, besides the exact name, why are they getting this particular benefit in other occupations or not?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Graham, we have an expert in the room sitting behind me. Sophie's an expert too. But sitting behind Sophie is Colin. Colin, would you like to weigh in on this?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Sure. For the record, Colin Robbins, Superbaugh NEA. I just wanna step back for a quick minute and point out the language that Sophie just read points to it's a it's a proof. It's language that it gives teachers the presumption of eligibility, and therefore that doesn't automatically guarantee them access, right? And that would be determined through the whole process with the employer.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And Does that mean that some employers would and some employers would not?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: No. They would just look at the the facts of that individual teacher's eligibility, and the presumption is that they do a full time teacher is presumed to work the requisite number of hours to be able to access this. And there's been this inconsistency that exists for airline pilots and flight attendants and teachers in between what is presumed under federal regulations and the presumption in Vermont for for some time. And so this is just sort of making sure there isn't that confusion. It's clarifying and recognizing that if one is able to access federal leave and have that presumption, unpaid federal leave, that same presumption is available under Vermont's unpaid leave. It's just rectifying an inconsistency between

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I understand the pilot situation has been a longstanding one. Was not aware until we got into this, the answer is that teachers are like pilots. I started thinking about, well, what are the parallel? Why is there a connection? I can understand pilots don't get paid while they're waiting for passengers to forward the plane, for example. While teachers get paid when kids go through the door to go to school, whether they do or not, they get the Santa Yulah.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Teachers don't get paid when they're doing their lesson planning on the weekends or gradings on the weekends.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Or do lots of other people in jobs who, you know, take work home with. Again,

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: last year, this committee and this body made the choice to align federal regulations for one group of workers that the federal government has recognized Recognize

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: that the federal government doesn't always do things that are logical or sensible. Well And, you know, as we may be in a rush to do something last night, I don't I didn't hear anybody asking these questions last year, at least to a greater extent.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think we did. I think we did a fairly thorough job of of of reviewing it. But what we didn't do is ask the question of what other professions fall in under this misalignment. And we have discovered that this is the other profession that does. And if it's in federal law, this is unpaid family leave. Remember, this is not massive benefit. It is simply unpaid family Thomas?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So your concern center Brock, the way I see this as solving a potential problem is a quick Google, I'm Googling a lot of them. The most litigated definition related to this is that I can see is the serious health condition and the federal regulations have restriction on inpatient care, meaning an overnight stay in the hospital, possibly or continuing treatment generally requires very little capacity. My point is that the federal definition seems a little more robust, whereas if we stay silent on this, it's potential that we might have more inconsistent and possibly more liberal interpretations of what would qualify for this. So I do see some merit in the lining of the federal rules because there could be a teacher or somebody trying to apply the federal standard, but then maybe getting the Vermont for treatment. And it might actually be better to have one consistent standard that is clearly acceptable.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: My next question, of course, is, if anything, this is caused. I've

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: There's questions that have been asked around the unpaid unpaid leave, and I don't think there's a I don't think there's a good way to track it because a lot of times, it's just worked out, you know, the employer and the employees. I don't know that there's any that question's come up before, and I'm all understanding, so it's really a good way to quantify that.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, guess the question, how relevant it is to what we're talking about here, but does that then lead a teacher to say, Well, I do lesson plans at home, and it shouldn't be unpaid, it should be paid.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, then they can negotiate their salary when their salary's

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: up That the first part of people would logically ask is where this takes us. And then when we say, well, Vermont does compensate or does consider that in certain of its policies such as this one, weight to the fact that this is compensable, one doesn't get this one.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Is this not all in the unpaid leave?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, this is all unpaid leave. So this is costing an institution time if they but my guess is it's made up. I mean, that is between the employer and employee. It's really just the eligibility piece. It should be, are you eligible under the parental family leave out? Because it is

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: a more generous fact than the family federal.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: As the spouse of a fifth grade teacher, I would really like to raise that spouse time. Should we go Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The both of you. So are we okay with section one? I'm fine with section one. I'll take and Thomas seems to be Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm okay with it. It's a wide intersection. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I mean, it's the most straightforward. I I think if we're a penguin section one, let's move to the issue of self attestation. And I realize thank you for reminding me that we may not have had a unified vote on this last year, and people may have had a safe and certain. Was thinking, well, speaking of being consistent, let's align ourselves with what we did last year. But if the so if there are any additional questions on the self annexation, you know, you know, that's my I think I guess I fall into the line of I trust people that when they've had this traumatic experience, they're not gonna have to pick it up. This is the the implications of it are just too big. And so I guess I we solve the test all the time. You and I solve test all the time here. We solve the test to our expenses. We solve the test when we, you know, when we do a lot of different things. So I think we both have to trust ourselves and trust. We have no I don't I'm sorry, Charlie isn't in the room, but I don't believe we have had any I recall in her testimony, we have not had any reports of anybody taking advantage of this. So, the employer can always challenge it. It's not like it is in in stone. An employer can challenge this. And there's the validation. My other note is there's the validation of additional things the employer can ask for, clerical, medical.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Looking at the language again, yeah, picking up to this conversation previously so I see in line 17 of page two where it's saying a person who's a survivor of domestic violence sexual assault or stalking and who has supporting documentation from any of of the following sources. So the supporting documentation is that key piece that even in the self death test, need supporting documentation. I hear your concern. Is it terrible? What if we had qualified supporting documentation just to make sure that the supporting documentation isn't accepted at face value without further consideration? Let me would a qualifying qualified term be at all to address the the the potential concern illegitimate to documentation? Well, okay. So line 18 supporting documentation lists self assessment to to being a qualified doctor, I guess, pushing down. If I had it qualified, would that somehow I

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: can add the possibility of, on line seven, self attestation, comma, under oath, comma, by a person described in the circumstances. Under oath doesn't mean you have to do anything other than sign something for a notary. But again, it becomes an open entity. It locks in a statement, and there are certain penalties for lying.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Because it's something I can't even imagine anybody lying about.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I can imagine people lie about all kinds of stuff. I've never heard Jewish businesses since three years. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we've had no experience of people lying about this so far. The HGs I mean, we've heard from a number of sources. I mean, this is not something tend to lie about. Being raped or sexually abused or a victim of domestic violence. I mean,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I I've seen the lies in those situations too. Well, I hope you can. Ask. I see on more than

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: one occasion. Mhmm. Well, then you are then there we are. I mean, I I I just think that under oath may be sort of violate what I think the the victim advocates are are are and and and the victim advocates aren't here. So I it's a it's a challenge at the moment

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: to Is there a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: answer that.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I don't know what the burden is or what the financial burden is, compare how frequently available notaries are. Honestly opposed to that, I think we're be more testimony to know that that does carry with it a higher legal bar, but what about if the qualified US sworn to supporting documentation, which would include notarization?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: A sworn a a sworn self attestation? Sworn to What does that imply, Sophie, as our lawyer?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That you're you're that you're under oath that this is I guess, for me, the question is, in practice, what would happen? Right? If it turns out somebody has I I just don't know how it would play out in practice. Is there any way I'm gonna go after them because they submitted something and said it was under oath and it it wasn't under oath? I I don't know. But, I mean, obviously, it's a policy decision by the committee in terms of what you want to do.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The reason why I like to qualify, not against the unroathing, but to qualify, I could imagine a scenario where somebody writes a sentence.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I hate you. I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: was put in here, and then that's the whole state, just one sentence. That seems a little too vague and I I feel like adding qualified supporting documentation, the employer could say, we don't see this as qualified as that it lacks details, specificity, validation. So, that's where I I thought it might have gone to those concerns but.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So Charlie's gonna zoom in with us in one second. Sorry. Sorry.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: And I I would say the the current language is a self attestation by the person describing the circumstances supporting the person's status. I think they would need to be more than just a single sentence.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So, that could be disqualified with the language as it is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. So, the victim's advocates, Gunnar Weeks and Charlie Goservan. Rose, as AG, do you have any, comment here? Because I think there was some this is this is fairly it's self attestation. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but while we're waiting for Charlie is some attestation occurs fairly regularly through our statutes and through our abilities to qualify for things.

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: So I feel like I'm talking a little bit out of my former lane. Okay. Remember, Rose

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Kennedy was state's attorney, Rutland County.

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: I mean, I think your question about if it was just a self swearing statement, what does that mean? How much does it hold? I think under like a perjury statute, it'd be kind of tough, I think, to pursue anything.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I haven't looked at this in a while, so Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: To that question, if it was sworn by a notary, then does it hold more weight for her to report?

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: I think there's specific language that the statute has about I swear to this and, under the pains and penalties of perdinary

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: EIS that it's accurate and,

[Rose Kennedy (Attorney General’s Office; former Rutland County State’s Attorney)]: you know, truthful to the best of my ability. I think that key language is important if you want it to be that strong.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, Todd, we have, what's Todd's title? Legislative liaison. We have Todd Daniels who's gonna zoom in to join us and Charlie Wilson. So if we just wait two secs, we're gonna get an answer on both.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Just wanna acknowledge, I know we're in trouble when I try to start words, and I think so.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, we're not. Not. You're trying to help thread the needle, and I appreciate you trying to help thread the needle.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, other piece I would say is, I mean, whether someone's had it notarized or they've self detected, if the employer has reason to think they've lied about it, I mean, would force a disciplined reaction one way or another.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Exactly. And the employer is perfectly capable of challenging this.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and if they, I mean, again, you can't, you lie, Right, and you'll finish the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: right. Right.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a subject of discipline, that, you know, you can have an action taken against you for that.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, dear.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: When you notarize something, when I've gotten the notary, I don't recall a notary actually reading. They were just validating that it's me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Correct.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So it's not like they have to review the documentation. They just wanna validate that I'm prompted and I'm signing this off of them to the banks.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: They're signing it Correct. On the basis of it. Again, depending upon how the patient attestation may indicate that this is assigned apply with Section four of this, etcetera.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, we have the AG For

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: the specific purpose. We have the AG and we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have charl the victim's advocate, Charlie Glissertman and Todd Daylo is welcome. Thank you. We may need your help here. We're trying to thread the needle on self attestation yet again. And char whoever would like to go first, Todd, do you have some thoughts on self attestation?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Thank you, Chair. Todd Delos, Assistant Attorney General at the Vermont AG's office. Thanks for having me in. I think it's important to go back to some of the testimony last week around what truing up these two definitions means and and what role this definitional change would play. This again is moving this definition that, as the chair indicated already passed through the the safe leave Bill Act 32 last session. To the employment protection section of the law, and this means that an individual, who is subject to discrimination, harassment, or some kind of negative, employment action could, seek legal protection if they can demonstrate, and the burden is on them to demonstrate that the action was taken because of their because of their membership or because they belong to a protected category. And here, all this bill is doing is saying, akin to safe leave, if somebody can demonstrate through any of these items, including self attestation, that they are a victim of stalking or intimate partner violence or domestic violence, then they can seek that as a claim. But it's really important here to to the point around self attestation, the concept of getting it notarized, all of that has to play out in court as evidence that an employer would basically say, no, you're not, or I terminated you because of x y z, nothing to do with your experience as a survivor. And so I I just wanna I want understands that that idea of someone swearing to the document that demonstrates their status as a survivor, whoops, I didn't mean to raise my hand, but the computer thought I did, is really much less important in this context because at the end of the day, if a claim is gonna move forward for discrimination, harassment, etcetera, the burden's gonna be there on that individual to show that they have that status independent on some level of the self attestation. It's just a means by which they can, in an initial phase, demonstrate that. And I think the more burdens, and I'll let Charlie speak to this, the more burdens we place on individuals who've already undergone a traumatic experience, the harder it's gonna be for folks to come forward and protect themselves.

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

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you for having me. I'm Charlie Glesserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I certainly second Todd's comments from the Attorney General's office. What we are hoping for here is to provide survivors of the same kinds of protections they have in the workplace under unpaid job protected leave, and ensure they have access to those protections under the Fair Employment Practices Act. I think aligning the documentation will appropriately provide for that. And Todd was exactly right that when we're thinking about what survivors need to access safety, we're thinking about accessible forms of documentation. I think there's a reason why the documentation list that was included in unpaid job protected leave was structured how it was. So survivors can access relief in the workplace without unneeded barriers. So I don't have too much more to add other than that in my past testimony, but I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Am I correct, Charlie, in understanding that we have to date no reports of abuse of self attestation in this regard?

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I have not heard any. No.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Question is for Todd. The language on self attestation here, if we were to add self attestation under oath by a person, would that make any difference or would it not make any difference to be worth doing?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I think it would make a difference for the individual who is seeking the protections as Charlie indicated. It would be another barrier. I think the case senator at the end of the day, You know, a G Kennedy indicated sort of would there be a criminal prosecution for somebody for perjury in this instance that seems pretty unlikely. Experience with if a if an employee was dishonest in claiming status or taking leave, that independently could be grounds for termination, and that would be the the crux of that, you know, case for lack of a better term. So whether they swore to it or not, if it turns out not to be true, then they don't have the protections under FIFA, and in fact, it could be grounds for termination independent. So in brief, I don't think it really moves the needle significantly in in in that world in which someone is which we haven't seen, but that world in which someone might be dishonest in seeking these protection.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Todd, I'm gonna just jump in because I just hear you say and should I refer to you as Attorney General Dallos?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Assistant, assistant.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Did I just hear you say that if somebody's put in a self attestation and the employer needs part of it to be factually false, that they could terminate the individual on those grounds?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Well, so I don't wanna get into too deep into hypotheticals, but essentially, right, somebody being dishonest in their job could be grounds for termination. Right? And so and that's why the concept of having it sworn to, I don't really think, shifts anything because if they're gonna falsely swear, then that's not gonna matter.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well the only thing that I would ask and again I'm not sure how much experience you've had in dealing with people in an employment situation and why, but would having to sign self attestation under oath be, at least effective to some degree in discouraging people from lying.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Yeah. It's an interesting point, Senator. I guess I wanna go back to sort of where this law sits and where this law sits is really someone claiming protections for a membership and a protected status. And I think the self attestation here is really much more about an individual being able to say I was fired because and less about I'm gonna take leave or I need this benefit. This is really a protection, not a benefit. So I I I I think as I play out the potential litigation here, again, this is someone saying, look, you only fired me because I took SafeLeaf, because I was a victim or a survivor, or I've been, you know, subject to stalking, and and that's why I was late to work or what have you. That then becomes a conversation around was the employer aware? Is this a legitimate ground, etcetera? I don't know as as whether that's notarized or not will matter because ultimately, it's gonna be a sworn deposition in litigation. Right? Gonna end up in the same place.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You're gonna end up in court and it's then we'll all, yeah, Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm not against the under oath piece. Is under oath clearly interpretable as a notary if that wasn't here or sworn to? Is that a better How do we make it so that notaries could move this forward to get people comfortable with this language?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Guess I Charlie, you want to answer that? Because it does create another barrier.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes, I think having a statement that sworn under paints the penalties of perjury that the individual survivor is certifying to the accuracy of the statement is a more accessible option than having a document be notarized.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Thomas, do you would that be?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Did I say you sworn to? Yeah.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes, that's exactly right. And, you know, there is actually a bill moving in the in the house that has similar language around swearing to a statement's accuracy. And I'm happy to send that over to Sophie if it's a helpful example.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is that possible for you to do in real time at this moment?

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Absolutely.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. What bill was it in? I know. Well, I'm not gonna interrupt. You send it to Sophie, and then we'll talk about it when we hear the language.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Perfect. I will do it now. It's in H385. It's the coerced debt bill that is in house commerce and economic development.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 75. No. 385. 8.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: 385.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: As introduced?

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: No. It is in the latest bill draft. I'm happy to if I have permissions to share my screen, I'm I'm happy to bring it up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Let's do that because I we need to get

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: the

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: language reads, the statement shall include the following language, above the debtor's signature and date. I declare that this statement is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the above statement is false. I will be subject to the penalty of perjury or other sanctions in the discretion of the court.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. So this is the language. I've declared the above statement is true and accurate to the best of my knowing and belief. I understand, and that is a self attestation.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: What what's this? But I'm swearing to it. Is this self this self attestation, the language, is it used in connection with court proceedings specifically?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: it it actually I think is a really interesting comparison to this because this process, because this statement is being provided to a financial institution, And they it could eventually be litigated, end up in a civil court, but doesn't necessarily have to be. And so, I think it would actually play out in in some ways in comparable to providing documentation to an employer that they either could accept or end up in litigation.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And I would ask Sophie as our counsel on this, would you see any objection to including that kind of language for this purpose?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I mean, you can certainly include that into this will. Mean, again, you'll have that discrepancy between the language under feature of the language under the parental family, but.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Again, this always has a problem with self attestation in general, but would summarize an accepted opinion. You okay? And so how would we and might we see a new copy of this or can we, because obviously in the beginning of C, lines thirteen and fourteen need to be adjusted.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, yeah, no, I can block that out for Jen and bring it back to the committee. Okay.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Now the only thing I think that we've been discussing is potential differences, does this apply to teachers? But it does. So it No. No. I mean, the overall the overall

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I think we've answered it to the best of our ability, which is that a lot included teachers. I don't know why they did, but they have. And what we're trying to do is align those for our state teachers. And in fact, Thomas pointed out, sadly, the federal law is less generous than the Vermont law. So

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And the other question, which I know I've it's because why, say, might know why federal law treats teachers this way and no other occupation other than pilots? There's a special

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Classic group. We also get a Special class.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: People to live with them know that they have a special class. They

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: have That and they have a very strong lobby. Exactly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: As to do with it.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Teachers are important.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Teachers are important.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, if legislators got lobbying support the same way, I might go along with it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, perhaps if we were

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: paid as well Nobody likes legislators. They like defense.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, Sophie, are you able to redo this in in and bring this back to us before we break at twelve? It's I don't want okay. I'm gonna be really blunt. I don't want Sophie going to this effort if there's if we're still gonna vote no. David?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. If I could. I I just wanna add some context to this, Sophie. So the unfortunate truth is we all, but I'll reflect on myself that far too many family members, friends who are the victims of sexual abuse. That's the unfortunate reality. So I'm not trying to put roadblocks in front of this the effort to include them as a class under this definition for a client that that's the whole intent. I get it. So now I believe this language we've resolved the self assessment issue, and I'm on board to all support that. So to your point, yes, I think that's a sufficient remedy. So with this change, you support Yes, yeah. And Randy, okay.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I will support it, but for the same reasons that Senator Weeks has mentioned, that being fair to people, but being fair to all people is what I'm concerned about more than anything else. A question that I have regarding this bill is, is it being fair to two classes of people, pilots and teachers, when there are other employee groups who deserve the same kind of protection for one reason or another, and they're being excluded. And the only thing that I can see as to why they are separated out from being excluded by and large is because they have good representation.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: David? Yeah, so this is our only labor bill we weren't saying to get out before.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep, 01/1973, your bill. 173 is our labor bill, but it's already gone out. We have two labor bills.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: This one

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and one hundred seventy three.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. So I would like to propose for your consideration, for the committee's consideration, that we pick up a section of H-eight 42, section three, which deals with education, health care, and negotiations, which we do happen to have in the in the room to comment on. This is specifically addressing where we get into, again, teacher health care negotiations at the point where the mediator is involved that currently a mediator is only is required to take away one argument or the other and not blend the two arguments. This section three of page four eighty two with remedy method would allow the mediator to take pieces of parts for a compromise solution, suppose, either A or B. Where is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that bill at the moment?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Because if it's stuck on the wall

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: General housing. Yeah. On the house side.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's an H bill, and it hasn't been taken over. It's not in a wall. That would derail this bill, I think, just in terms of It would delay it.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. But sounds like we have support for the bill as it exists.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm just in the waters. Yeah. We took testimonies on the finance and incentive finance. Well, this is the labor issue. So that's what we sent your email.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is the piece that we were gonna talk about. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: There's a lot of support from the Vermont School Boards Association to address this because they are stuck in this position where they have to choose one or the other and they know, the mediators know that there's a better middle ground solution but the language doesn't allow you to come up with it. So it seems like a reasonable thing. I support it. I think it would address our health care issues.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Here we are heading into town meeting without any any we're not addressing the healthcare issue with the education landscape. This is minor attack.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I permission to share, can is that okay if I share that?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. And then I'd also like to hear from Colm. While you're working on sharing. Colm, would you like to weigh in on?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Sure. Again, for the record, Colm Robinson, Vermont and EA, as Senator Chittenden mentioned, there was some initial queries and testimony provided to your colleagues in senate finance on this. And I think what that hearing and that conversation exposed is that, and as this committee knows, when it comes to collective bargaining law and statute and processes, it's complex. In this particular case, we're talking about a benefit that is going to impact over 35,000 remonters. And quite frankly, as I think Senate Education heard from the chair of Senate Health and Welfare a couple months or a couple weeks ago, the underlying premise that changing the collective bargaining process is somehow gonna make health care more affordable for anybody is a false notion. We have a health care affordability crisis for all Vermonters, and changing the bargaining statute is fundamentally not going to address the underlying problem. That's why Senate Alliance and her committee has done good work, including creating a situation where the VHI, the pool that covers health provides health care benefits to public school employees statewide, is going to realize $40,000,000 in savings effective July due to decisions made by the GMCV, due to the infusion medication cap law you all passed last year, and decisions made by the Beehive board to bring down costs. So that is $40,000,000 of savings realized to taxpayers and school employees who pay 20% of their own paycheck every single week that they get paid. And so, unfortunately, this provision and the collective bargaining statute is not a remedy to what is a health care cost crisis for everybody. I would also say that as chair Clarkson pointed out, this is an issue that is a great concern to both school employees as well as other interested parties, and fulsome and robust debate and conversation about this issue would be critical to ensuring that it if if the community was interested in pursuing it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. I think, David, hold on one sec. My feeling is that we have an probably an hour next week to address that is insufficient time to address something this big. What I think we can do is use this labor bill because I they're not sending us a labor bill. We can use our labor bill as a way to really put pressure on on house general to take that up because it deserves the time. I mean, it's a big this is a big conversation. It's not such a small conversation. And I think we have to show in context of the education cost reduction efforts that this would have any impact on that. I I just literally don't think we have the time to give it justice. I I would I'm happy to represent, as I would hope everybody at this table would represent to the chair of house general, the import, from our point of view up there taking that bill up and giving it due consideration as they have two labor bills coming at them for consideration. Actually, they only get one workers' comp will go to house stores. And I appreciate, David, you raising this at this moment, and Tom had raised it earlier. And we it's a big labor question, I believe, and one I just don't feel we have time to give it justice. It's it's my honest response at this moment. Doctor. Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I just say, I think, we're not talking about taking away benefits. It is a conversation with lots of interest, but this is about a tweak to current law that might get us to a place where where a lot of people, taxpayers as well as teachers, still come to a a reasonable place where they get good health care coverage and a price that Vermonters can afford. So I'm not opposed to the having this discussion. I I wonder if since there's interest to move this bill along here, could this be an amendment we consider for it afterwards?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Absolutely. We could we could because that bill will come back to us, and we can there may be discussion. But I I I think it would be really helpful for the house who has much more time than we do. They have double the time we do to take this up as they get our bill. And I think, I think in all fairness, that would be give the issue the, like, the time and effort and the light it needs because it sounds like it needs some serious consideration and discussion.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We should hear from the school board side. I think they have a compelling argument for us to to consider this one.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Are you

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: familiar with this topic of Alison and Ron?

[Unidentified Senator (Senate Education Committee member)]: I am I mean, I am. I was trying not to comment on things that might have been discussed before I got here. Is it just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So David is proposing Yeah. That we add to s two thirty at this point, this provision in h three.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Eight forty two. Eight forty two.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Mhmm. 42, section three. Eight. Tell us the negotiation.

[Unidentified Senator (Senate Education Committee member)]: The picking and choosing. So there's And what section is it? Three. So in senate education, we've looked at the the longer, or more multifaceted school boards association proposal that I think has other provisions we might consider. And this one is one where I think we really need to know how often the BLRB or labor attorneys are in labor law, how often we are allowing an arbitrator to pick and choose different provisions to make up a whole agreement. That, you know, that is why this issue is before these two committees, is because that could have serious implications for other areas of labor law, and it wouldn't be the first place I would go to try and impact, you know, the overall Cost savings. Cost savings. If if there are other pieces of the bill that sit in house general that they've been looking I think they've at least been looking at informally that might give us a framework for talking about this that doesn't impact all of labor law.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, at this point in in in the session, where we every minute for the next week and a half is a cabinet floor, and I we already have you coming in at 08:30, and I don't wanna take away all your lunches. So I think that at this point, I would really like to work with the chair of house general, and I will advocate for this as we have our Wednesday morning breakfast at 07:30. I will advocate for this to be taken up when they take up s 02:30 because s 02:30 will go to their. And I think it's fair to have a whole conversation. I think if I'm hearing we have to have the BLRB, the MEA, the school boards, and and and some teachers. I mean, this is a a Quite a lift. It's I think it's a big lift at this point, and I appreciate our this conversation. Thank you. And I appreciate whatever you've had in in education. And but I think that at this point, I would ask that we leave this consideration for after crossover with house general, and I will advocate, and I would hope maybe the the we could have the chair come in and chat with him about how important it is to us. Is that okay? Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Okay so to bring Kesha up to speed we are I'm hoping with the new provision that Sophie has worked on.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I've worked on it yet

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I will. Okay so look So we're we've gotten to yes. Yeah. If we include this language. Right.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So it would be just adding into crime victim status under the self attestation, some language around that they're submitting it under penalty of perjury. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You're gonna pull that together, and maybe we'll vote on it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if we could bring if it's possible for you to bring back to us at 11:50. Yes.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm in another committee at 10:30, so would do the best.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. And with that, I think just given everybody's been sitting okay. I know. And I have Thomas Chittenden Why on my don't we take a break till ten and wolf reconvene? How was drug rules? It was