Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: And artificial intelligence would be I have a pretty wide portfolio. Economic development, I see Senator Weeks. Economic, Senator Rutland's deal. Economic development, workforce development. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. But why Senator? Just curious. Yes. Yeah. So we're all okay.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So S-two 27, and Mr. Chair, do you want me to share my screen or just I'm happy

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: It's to go posted.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Posted. I think

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: he's As introduced. We all have our copies. Okay. Alright. And, you know, kind of big, big picture here, s t two seven, amends title 16, which what everybody is familiar with. Chapter 33 currently has some language about the fire and emergency prepared drills, safety pro safety patrols, and this bill would add in some immigration protocols for schools to adhere to. So we have some definitions. We define a federal immigration authority on the bottom of page one. That is a federal agency or department, along with their employees' task of enforcement of immigration law, and that includes DHS, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration, Customs Enforcement, ICE, and the Border Patrol. Number two, not public area of the school site is kind of as it sounds. It is an area of a school that normally requires authorization by the school to enter consistent with section fourteen eighty four, which, if you're not familiar with that section, that is your access control and visitor management policy that every school has to have. Includes classrooms, the cafeteria, the gymnasium Quick question.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Quick quick quick. When it says non public areas, will that also include law enforcement? Are they subject to the non public areas, or are they automatically being that they are part of the government, that they are allowed in a non public area.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So it depends, and we'll get there. Okay. As far as when it actually, I'll use that definition. Alright. Yeah, because I can't say yes or no because of this. This is still the definition. Right. Okay. So classrooms, cafeteria, gymnasium, playgrounds, and any other location where students gather. So really, if you think about it, most schools have that lobby, where even today, you have to get permission to enter because the doors are blocked. Category three school means a public school or an independent school approved under section one six six of the title, and includes employees and independent contractors working for the school. I'll add that that Saint James, you're very familiar with her, she looked at the bill and helped me put up these definitions, and she might need to come in if you have questions about specific school definitions. Subsection b, each school district, an approved independent school in the state shall adopt and maintain a policy that reflects the requirements of this bill. Each superintendent and head of school, shall develop and implement procedures to carry out such policies. Subsection c, Immigration Resources, a superintendent shall distribute immigration and civil rights related resources to staff, students, and family members that are provided by the Office of the Attorney General or by another source that has had its resources reviewed and approved by the Attorney General's office. Also, each school, the superintendent oversees, they shall designate an officer to serve as a resource for immigration related matters, who shall receive from the Superintendent updated information on an ongoing basis. D, Guardian Detainment. A Superintendent or their designee shall, to the greatest extent possible, partner with a legal adequacy institution that will provide assistance to a student in the event that a guardian of a student has been detained by immigration authorities while the student is in school.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what is that? Let's just look at that.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So, I think that the reason we the language is to the greatest extent possible is because not every school may have the ability to partner with such an institution that can manage those types of events. So the language is meant to be a bit flexible to where some school districts, some schools may be easily able to partner with a legal advocacy group that could do that, but some schools in rural Vermont may not have that same opportunity to do that.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So in some ways, it's just making sure that there's somebody to call if something happens to get jumped in revived.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: We're, yes, these legal institutions you're thinking about, they don't have to be lawyers, but they should know immigration law and should know how to best facilitate that. Effort. Student records of Section E. School districts are prohibited from using policies or procedures to engage in practices that have the effects of excluding a legal pupil from schooling, including collecting or requesting information regarding citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program. Prohibited from designating immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, or national origin as directory information, as those terms are defined by FERPA. Voluntary sharing student information, including immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, national origin, sexual orientation, status as a survivor of domestic violence or sexual assault, status as a recipient of public assistance or school discipline records with a third party unless required to do so by state or federal law. Those are the records requirements. F, immigration authorities on-site. The superintendent of a school shall, subject to an exception below, be the sole authority to admit a federal immigration authority into a nonpublic area in the school site, and designate one person that works at each school to serve as a designee of the Superintendent in the event that they are not present when a Federal immigration authority appears on-site. The superintendent or designee shall not allow a federal immigration authority into a non public area of a school site unless a judicial warrant is presented by the authority that names a specific individual under arrest or subject to a search for the test. In the event that the authority enters that nonpublic area without approval, the school shall not obstruct the authority from entering a nonpublic area of

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the school site. So let's just make sure we understand what that says. So it says in the first instance, you don't let them in unless they have a judicial board. Then b, if they break to the board or whatever, you don't get into it. Right. Okay.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: For absence, a judicial warrant. No school shall reveal any information about a student or school staff effort in response to a request from a federal immigration federal agency.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And then Quick question. Is any of this already in statute?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: There's not in statute. Some schools have their own policies. I think a Bunusky is a big common So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we're kind of pulling all the policies together in this one bill to settle the policy?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, this kind of be a state statute, and every school would have to adopt a policy that reflects the statute. Correct. Top of page five, immigration agreements. Except as required by federal law, no school shall enter into an agreement with a state, local, or federal government entity that furthers the enforcement of any federal immigration law. The school superintendent is the sole individual that may approve an agreement required by federal law. Any questions about that from section? Section two is the immigration resource guide that was referenced earlier. So the office of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Agency of Education, shall develop an immigration resource guide pursuant to that section earlier in the bill. The guide shall be developed in a manner that serves to protect the privacy and safety of students and staff. The guide shall be completed on or before 03/01/2026 and be sent to all superintendents for distribution to school districts on or before 03/31/2026. The office shall review the guidance once annually and any updates to the guide to all superintendents not later than 30 after completion of the guide. And then the policy adoption deadline. Each school district and approved independent schools subject to the requirements of the Act shall finalize their policy, presumes earlier in the bill where schools must adopt the policy that reflects the statutory language here on or before 08/01/2026. So the question earlier about the, nonpublic hearing of school side, just to kind of circle back to that question. It it is a officer, federal immigration officer without a warrant? No. However, if it's state police, yes. Or any other police, without a warrant, they are allowed to go into the school site, assuming they meet the other the current access control that a school has developed or policy for statute fourteen eighty four, if the person's allowed in through that policy, then they would be allowed in. So that's kind of the what statute is, in regards to nonpublic heresy school. Effective on 07/01/2026.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That is the bill? Yes. So is there the federal law that's referenced in here, is that contrary to you're to do?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So there's not, there's just in general federal laws that apply, like, the Immigration Nationality Act is one immigration law that is a federal law. So the the the purpose is, instead of naming every federal law that could contradict this, it's saying that if there is a federal law that con that would provide a way to get records of students, and that federal law supersedes state law because we cannot go against federal law. So in this case, it's saying that unless there's a federal law on point, this state law shouldn't be what schools Yeah. Fault of. Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What is it being on page three? Go through the student reference section. It says, my wife died and have the effect of excluding a legal viewpoint from school.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: What does the term legal review mean? So my understanding is the Vermont constitution provides a right to education, right, for all individuals, and the language there is intended to make that clear that if you have a student, a kid in Vermont, they have a right

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to education. By virtue of the fact that they are you're right. Yeah. Correct. So

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: we can rephrase that if you think something else. Yeah. I'm

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: also going back to my mind with practice. Yep. So a legal student really is anybody who's here. Per the Vermont

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: High School District. Yeah. Okay. Yep.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I I think there

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: are other federal laws that support, like McKinney Vento supports that a student doesn't have to be a citizen or have a a residence in that district.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: The the federal constitution, I think, is also fairly clear, but I would cite the Vermont constitution as well, as being the more immediate, thing that you can look at and see that Vermont itself requires. And the federal government has a constitution as a form also. I don't think it guarantees the right to an opinion.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. Just if there's a conflict and the AOE guidance also cites multiple federal laws, which I think is important if two different entities are arguing about who has the authority,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Now I get the size. So one must neglected for such thing. We should just get some tests. The superintendent, superintendents, the AG, and perhaps the agency. Probably

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: PAL schools are not going to have superintendents, so it's probably going

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to be They all would have, I see what you're saying. They all will be under a superintendent.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yes, but he's supposed to be there, so if it's my school, he can't be there. And

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: so we have to think about whether we want somebody to be responsible for his long head policies. That doesn't quite say that here, right? Theoretically, each SU or SV would have to come up

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: with their own. Each school district and approved and if in a school between the state shall adopt an intent upon so that reflects the requirements. So there's some flexibility as to

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: how they forward things, but in general, you know, you have these framework that statute provides you. Yeah. Although perhaps you're suggesting it might be helpful to the scheme of districts if they had a model policy that they could deal with. Well, that's a question. So what's the temperature check if people were interested in taking this one? Let's see where it comes in two zero nine. I don't wanna duplicate bills. Did you do two zero nine too? What kind

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: of time? Would it be easy enough to incorporate the two?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I think incorporate, would need to know kind of what your, like, the same exact language and make it one bill, or I think, I guess it's a matter of this is germane to the two zero nine, and that's not a question for me. Right. They wrote immigration related, but I

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: can't speak to that. Yeah, that's what I'm working on. That's immigration related.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So 209, though, is different in that this one is about the district or the SU developing a policy for what happens when and and from the to arise is very much just saying thou shalt not to engage in civil arrests. So.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: On a longer list of places that are considered schools. And it goes to beyond places that just have superintendents. So college campuses are on their pre K is on their daycare centers.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: But could this fall fairly easy as its own?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's true. I I think,

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I mean, I think that it could, but it's also I I don't know if it is necessarily duplicative, but the specific section, because this is just I mean, this is a blanket prohibition on allowing Well, actually, should ask the Ledge Council this. I mean, how do you think Is there a conflict between these two? Are they redundant, or do they cover different bases?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So, S2 and I, just for everyone's reference, is a bill that restricts civil arrests in sensitive locations, which, as the bill that is being worked on, includes several different things like, certain government buildings, schools, and, health care facilities. So, as civil arrest is a arrest that there's no change of warrant. It is usually an administrative warrant that a DHS employee has written and provided. So in that case, this bill also requires a warrant to enter a nonpublic area of the school, so they don't really conflict. What this bill is doing is really more procedural, right? When this thing happens, here's what you do. S two zero nine is like, just don't do this thing. Don't commit a civil arrest. This bill is not speaking

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: about civilists. So another way to think about it perhaps is that S two zero nine is geared toward them, agents of what they can and can't do, and this is geared toward what you do if you're on the other side of it.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: It's literally telling the superintendent that, you know, to stop. Yeah. An immigration authority, right? So in that way, you're correct. Yeah. I want you to look at

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it. Good. That makes sense. Well, why don't we take some more testimony that you could think will figure out, this is gonna end up with you, this is gonna end up with you.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, yeah, I think we're more in the realm of dealing with a very narrow road that we can navigate those, telling what telling law enforcement.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Correct.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Not just civil agents, law enforcement, but they can't do. Whereas this is, like Rick said, dealt with superintendent. Yep. But they haven't. Okay. I

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think Rebecca Callahan at UVM, in the UVM Department of Education, would wanna testify. She does a lot of work that is at the intersection of immigration and English language learners. But I do think this is the this is the education policy question, even if it ends up with pass through or something, judiciary.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, think it is too. It's gonna go to judiciary.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I think maybe education experts

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: would be. Yeah, I'm thinking superintendents, agency. You wrote Rebecca Thaliakia down. I'll send Daphne her. So, good. Any other questions? Counsel? Thank you. I think

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Wilmer Echeverria would be a good superintendent to have, not this,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: if he feels hospital. The Yeah. You Okay. Yes, that makes sense. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Ngoll. Thanks. Okay, so I think we are with that, we learned a term from tennis.