Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Alright, Senator Education Committee. Yeah. I'm seventh back after a short break. We are shaping up the test two twenty seven Act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools. We're looking at a new draft, and we have with us Rick our legislative council, to walk us through the new draft.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, good afternoon. Rick Staple, Office of Glorsobe Council. So S227 draft 1.3 is what you all have, is that right?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Should have.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2.3, okay. 1.3. So, some significant changes from the introduced version, and this is a combination of receiving some Advocate testimony recommendations, and also trying to kind of thread the needle on what you all want. So, I'm not sure how close we are, but let's maybe kind of go through and see if there's things you, would like additionally changed. So the purpose statement, I generally don't read these, this is plain English, kind of what the purpose of the bill is, so you're all welcome to read this. It's in session lock, so if this bill were passed later on, you can go back and see why did they do this, what was the reason for it, so if you don't like

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: what's said

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there, you can recommend changes, but it's just speaking of immigration status and educational rights

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: for children. Did we have no preference section in your total? No, correct.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This was an advocate provided most of time, so I did not write it. Okay, on page two, is where the substantive statutory changes are.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep, so back on page one, I didn't see that we changed the name of the bill anywhere. Maybe that's not the red line, but anyway, it used to be immigration protocols, but we were all talking about law enforcement protocols.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, let me, it's a good question. Once I go

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: through the bill, we can kind

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of discuss if that's necessary. It is still immigration related. So the way that we're actually gonna be through right now, to defer definition on page two, the law enforcement officer previously was specifically federal immigration authorities. And you heard testimony from the AG's office and others have said this is maybe not the best idea to specifically target, and I agree, federal government. So in this case, the definition is, has the same meaning as the 20 DSA twenty three fifty one a, and is a very huge list of Vermont police. It includes all state police, capital police. It's a very, very broad definition. It also includes any officer of a federal law enforcement agency or any person acting on behalf of a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency. So really, most police officers are going to be included in this definition.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But then I don't if you wanna do a little kind of stuff, that includes twice the question.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do blame the editors. That's right.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's right. Right. No worries.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: You know?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I read these. Yeah,

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's good catch. So on line five, subdivision B, it does not include a school resource officer or a safe general service station of the school's testimony you received. You don't want to have those people excluded from their birth. Okay. Nonpublic area of the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: school

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: also was questioned during testimony. It means an area of a school during a school day or school sponsored activity that normally requires authorization by the school to enter, consistent with Section fourteen eighty four, which is already in statute, and includes any area a school determines to be non public. So I think with this definition, the previous definition had a list of a gymnasium, playground, etcetera. The testimony I heard was that's maybe too not clear. A school would maybe not know what you want them to determine on public. So in this way, each school can determine what it deems to their schools different, right? That school can determine that we want our football field, or we want this part of the school property being on public, but the school may disagree. They may be more narrowly defined in that definition. Yes. Just

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: to clarify, you know, they're public schools, but yet, we can go, it's non public for the public to come in.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, that's a good question. When you go to a school today, typically it's locked. Right, you have to buzz something to get in. And that's for various reasons. And fourteen eighty four requires schools to adopt this type of access visitor policy of how you allow people into the school. Let's talk about law enforcement. But the idea here is schools already have these policies in place of how to let in visitors. So there's already this idea that it's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: not totally open to public. Could that ever be challenged?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Constitutionally? As far as this is

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: supposed to end up. Okay, because the public owns the school, it's no different.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Federal, do

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: you have an answer for that?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Well, didn't want to interrupt you. Keep going. No, go ahead. No, I was

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: just gonna say it's, you know, there are different types and levels of public forums, so you've got public forums like the sidewalk in front of the State House and then quasi public forums that would be like a courthouse where, you know, you can't just go in and, you know, it's, yes, it's public, but you can't go into the middle of the hearing and, you know, all of a banner or, you know, start talking to the judge or anything like that. There's rules regarding You can, but you're gonna get kicked out. Right. And you'll be justified in getting kicked out. Military bases also been paid for by the taxpayers owned by the public, but, you know, good luck. They're trying to go in and go on forever you want. So depending on the government's interest in prohibiting access to a public area, there are different tiers as to who can, who can do certain things in certain areas.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Asked him, but your lawyer as well, could this ever be challenged that you're talking down, like football field, how can you designate that wide of an area that doesn't have a fence, and you just, anybody at any time can walk onto it, and now all of

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: a sudden, is it kind of

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like the red lines in

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: a federal facility? So you're gonna

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: have to define that to say where it starts, stops.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: This isn't legal advice. You just need to advise, but no, the, you would presumably ask the question of, is there a rational basis for the government to create a non public area? So, you know, there's different levels of judicial review and scrutiny. So, you know, when it comes to race and ethnicity, that that goes under strict scrutiny which is the highest but then, you know, then, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis and rational basis is basically anything that doesn't involve I might be oversimplifying this, but anything that doesn't involve immutable characteristics. So if, you know, if you've got Well, I I guess one way to look at it, I'll rephrase it. It's, you know, looking at the drinking age, you know, there's, does the government have a rational basis for saying that a 21 year's biggest consume alcohol. You know, that's consuming alcohol isn't something as immutable as whether you're from a certain country or not. I don't know if I'm explaining this.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I I just that

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: it could, I guess the last lead counts, because you have, you, I do understand where you're coming from because they add federal and state. But it could be challenged at some point, not that anybody might not, but it could be challenged because of the work.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can give you a real lawyer answer. Going through a real lawyer answer. Well, could

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: be challenged.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I respect Senator Hashim has a good job explaining the scrutiny analysis. It's very, very in the weeds, right, as far as how this all works. My legal opinion is this is not a huge First Amendment issue because schools are already doing this. Yeah. And that's not been challenged. And I think when it comes to security and safety, that's a pretty good reason for the government to do this. Like today, if you challenge fourteen eighty four, the argument would be safety of the students and the staff, right? And you want some control over these children, who's gonna come in, who's seen them, who's,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know, so that's the argument. I guess it's public, however, the good reason is this.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Thank you, Victor.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Page two, line seven and eight. The phrase during the school day can introduce a concept, sheltering, and that being that at the end of the school day, all the law enforcement officer has to do is pause and wait and on the student will exit in the school day where they're you know according to this language I I would submit that we strike during the school day and it has all the intent and purpose for what I think everyone's trying to accomplish.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so I think that it's a good point. The reason I added that was I remember testimony about what schools use during a election as a polling site or some other non school activity. Right? So I can't think of anything else besides an election. That's why school sponsored activity is also there in case it's a football game or some kind of athletic event. But it's a good it's a good point. I I don't think it would include after hours. So an officer could, yes, wait. So here's

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the hypothetical scenario. Child's in the school. Law enforcement officers are waiting outside the school. The student is in essentially a what's called sanctuary area for all better purposes, and they're not protected once the school is over. And that's not what I think we're trying to advocate. I think we're trying to try to establish a sanctuary area school and school sanctuary areas. Yeah. Yeah. So you're suggesting

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you're suggesting cross out during the school day? Yeah. Or

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: school starts activity, right? Just cross out the ball, the yellow.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, starts to be done.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, he's I think Rick is thinking that actually it might narrow it.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. He achieved all of our productivity. Better profit back. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, that actually, I was thinking the same thing you did for a minute, but I don't know no, you're, you're trying to get as broad as possible, I sort of think it's suggesting. Is there a

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: way to put an exemption clause when it's being used for polling or

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: a non school, you know? Yeah. That way you can have it covered from day to night except when a public event such as polling or any other, or a craft fair, well, I don't, I don't.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: That way, why don't we put what's, is exempt?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Do we have to exempt anything? Because what if we, what if we pinned or if we remained silent on that, and it was used for the there it would still be a sexual event. And I think that's our goal. Right. So maybe we'll just

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: not say anything. Okay. But is that just for the children, not if an adult entered, that they were heading after an adult? Does that cover them too?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You know, well, they can give themselves a lot of time.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: I don't know if that's gonna help conclude the conversation or make it more complicated, but polling places and all educational institutions are going to be if two zero nine passes in its current form, it's signed to law, will prohibit all civil arrests in all polling places. Civil arrests are immigration arrests. We just use that language to make it more, encompassing, but the yeah. So immigration arrests and detainments.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Is that true if they know they came across the border undocumented? If you come through a port and overstay, that becomes a symptom. If you come across the border undocumented, like walking through the woods and that, now that is a misdemeanor, not covered by civil.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: If there's a warrant for the person's arrest, a traditional warrant, they can go into a place and arrest them. If it's not that, then they can't.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So, and this is all hypothetical,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: but we do have border schools. This is why I'm asking this, that you have somebody that the border patrol actually sees cross by the, near the high school, and sees them cross, not going through a point of entry, races into the school, are they gonna be safe? Because now, as a misdemeanor, it's not.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, how would they get

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: into the school? If it's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: going that day, or if it's a football game going on, or, you know.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's already so this bill and maybe Angry. Screech. Those. And maybe this this bill will explain what happens, but someone entering a school of trespassing, that's a separate issue, right? And that could be canceled separately. This bill wouldn't stop. And let's maybe we'll we'll figure that out if it's still a concern of yours. And because we do have a lot of border border patrol,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: and they fled over there quite easily. And it could be during a football game, it could be that, and I just want protection for our kids and families as well, and not get hindered not allowing the Our federal law and state law, and doing what they have to do in this case, that it could be, this could kinda mess it up a little bit. And if I will, if everybody here except me

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: as that, I won't, won't. But as you say, won't die on that sword.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: We will. But I want, being that we live on a border, and this is a reality that could happen, You know, I understand down in Burlington and Essex and all, yeah, get it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No, mean, Jill Martin Diaz, who's on the screen, one of our best immigration attorneys now in the state, has answered lots of people's questions, no judgment. Know, I think they'd be willing to do

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the same. Well, why don't we have Jill come in? Unmute yourself. Introduce yourself. Thank

[Jill Martin Diaz]: you, Chair and Senators of the committee. I am Jill Martin Diaz, my pronouns are theythem. I'm the supervising immigration attorney of Vermont Asylum Assistance Project for the state's foremost and largest immigration legal service provider. I previously taught immigration law clinically and doctrinally at Vermont Law and Graduate School and currently lecture on immigration policy and practice at University of Vermont. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I apologize for my casual dress. I'm actually out of the office, but when I received the opportunity to testify and offer whatever expertise I can from what we're seeing on the ground and how the law plays out in practice, I just wanted to make myself available because I think this is such an important conversation. Rick, I don't want to, I I can kind of chime in specifically on this Fourth Amendment question that the committee is currently chewing on and then pass it back to you and just remain available to answer any directed questions from the committee, if that helps. Fabulous. So I I really understand the the senator's concern about, you know, creating state law that might in any way interfere with federal immigration, enforcement authority. But my reading of this statute from my perspective, the statute is a, a codification of clarifying who has the authority to make decisions on behalf of a school district in interacting with law enforcement during these law enforcement Fourth Amendment protected issues. So the Fourth Amendment of the constitution protects the citizenry from unreasonable intrusion into privacy. And there's a lot of very fact specific situations that have never been tested in the courts. The current immigration enforcement climate is raising lots of really specific hypothetical questions like the ones we're considering here, and as Senator Ram Hinsdale referenced, most of the know your rights requests I get from towns, municipalities, nonprofits, government agencies, and private businesses is a what would happen if, and then a very, very fact specific hypothetical. And unfortunately, lawyers like us, we typically look to past decisions to help predict future outcomes in hypotheticals. A lot of what the enforcement activity we're seeing nowadays is really unchartered territory. So we don't have so many past experiences to look for. So we can't, to the point that Rick made about, yes, anyone can challenge anything, mean, that is true. But what I see here is just a clarification that the superintendent and their delegate are the sole people who get to make decisions on behalf of the school district interacting with law enforcement authority that are attempting to enter either with or without a judicial warrant as is required by the Fourth Amendment. There wouldn't whether or not if a law enforcement officer shows up with a judicial warrant from a federal court judge that says, yes, they can conduct a search or seizure on the school premises, even in private areas, according to whatever the judge has approved, whether it's to enforce civil immigration law or federal criminal law to the point about misdemeanor liability for unlawful entry. Nothing in this statute limits the ability of the superintendent or their delegate to grant law enforcement access with a judicial warrant. It's simply a safety check because in this current enforcement climate, we are seeing a lot of very recently hired and limited trained federal agents exercising authority to enter places where there has been no judicial oversight. There has been no judicial warrant. And so there is I don't recognize anything in this in the current version 1.3 that would limit Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, let's say, their ability to enter a school property with a judicial warrant to execute an arrest for misdemeanor unlawful entry.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: You've missed my point, I think, though. If it's up on the border, they see the individual across the border, and say there's a football game going on, and they want to apprehend it, will they or will they not be able to do that, being that the act is happening right then?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Well, that would depend on whether, I mean, according to constitutional jurisprudence, that would depend on whether they have probable cause to effectuate an arrest under exigent circumstances, notwithstanding the lack of a judicial warrant. What we actually, I mean, I hear the call of the question, what we actually see as asylum lawyers is that the majority of people who are too low income to arrive by passport and plane ticket to The United States to seek asylum are typically low income people from contiguous countries. And so the vast majority of asylum seekers who are low income that we represent at back are people who had no other mechanism of becoming present to seek asylum but to cross the border by land. There's if if if in the scenario that someone was coming and the FBI or border patrol wanted to enforce an arrest and charge misdemeanor liability for unlawful entry, the the constitutional law is very well settled that they would need either, exigent circumstances to support a finding of probable cause or, a judicial warrant signed by a judge. And I think what this statute is saying that in either event, we are endangering our frontline staff and our communities if we're putting that analysis, that case by case analysis, in the hands of any person who happens to work for the school district, and instead centralizing that decision making authority with a few key players who are best placed to have the training to be able to make the right decisions.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we keep Okay.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the definition of school, small change, adding school resource and safety officers to the definition.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And I do

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wanna highlight there's no change here, but, some of the comments have been, including employees, as far as the obligation. School includes employees. So when you see the word school in the bill, it does also include employees and now making sure to include school resource and safety officers as far

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: as the obligations of what school must do. So I

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I may highlight those as we go on, but subsection b, this is the policy that's required. There was testimony from the committee requesting that the policy be reviewed at least once every two years, so that language was added. And also advocates asked for the Vermont Superintendent's Association and the Vermont School Boards Association to be involved in the development of these procedures based on the policy. I think there was the testimony of observability, there's a lack of understanding as to how we actually effectuate these policies, so these two entities will help the schools figure out, here's the policy, here's how you actually act it out. On page three, not too many changes, this is the Immigration Resources Subsection C, clarifying that when you hand out these resources, that each school designates at least one individual. The previous bill said, draft said officer, and there was a request that that's confusing. It's not law enforcement. It should just be an individual who serves as a resource for immigration related matters, and again, clarifying that this information is provided by the AG. That wasn't clarified before, so I think the superintendents wanna make sure that they're not making this themselves, but they're getting help from the EAG's office on those resources, and when they get updated, they get updates from the EAG. Subsection D, Guardian Detainment. The previous draft did not have the words or immigration as they've now been added, so a superintendent or the designee can partner with a legal or immigration advocacy institution. No other changes to that paragraph. B student records. The previous draft had school districts. Now it just says schools because we don't have school district defined in this bill. So the request was to make it clear that every school must have these policies or procedures, or at least are prohibited from using these policies or procedures to engage in the following practices. On page four, Subdivision A is added. So kind of going back to the, infra language, a school is prohibited from using policies or procedures to engage in practices that have the effects of excluding a legal pupil for school, including designated immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, or national origin, a, in any database that the school maintains. And then the, previous language, the director information remains in the bill. Again, that's to avoid some other, maybe non required databases a school may use to store student data, so ensuring that information is not on those databases either. Maybe an informal student directory, that kind of thing. Subsection F, law enforcement on-site and request for information. So several changes here, a lot of it's repeated, and I'll explain why. The superintendent of the school shall be the sole authority to admit a law enforcement officer who appears on an immigration related matter. And remember, law enforcement officer now means every law enforcement, state, local, federal, it is narrowed by that immigration related matter, which is defined here in a second. So, B, designate at least one individual. The word was just one, so now we're saying at least they can do more than one if they want. At least one who works at each school to serve as designee, who is not present when the end of the change here is this was previously federal immigration authority, now it's law enforcement officer. On page five, the superintendent or designee shall not allow. Again, previously, it was a federal immigration authority, now it is a law enforcement officer appearing on an immigrant prohibit matter into a nonpublic area of a school, unless a judicial warrant is presented by the officer that names an individual under arrest or subject to a search. In the event, again, was Federal Integration Authority now law enforcement officer appearing on an immigration related matter, enters a non public area school without approval from the superintendent or designee, the school shall not obstruct the officer from entering the nonpublic area. Absent a judicial warrant, no school shall reveal any information about a student or school staff member in response to an immigration related request from a law enforcement officer. So, Subdivision 5 is very, very important. This is how you define an immigration related matter or request. It means an administrative warrant, civil warrant, immigration detainee, or any other document or request that pertains to an individual's immigration or citizenship status. So what this means is if a police officer we talked last time about hearing a gunshot or a phone call, 09:11, about an emergency, that police officer, federal, state, local, they're not appearing on an immigration related matter, they're appearing on some other matter, criminal, it could also be civil, but that would remove that exigent circumstance from basically becoming a problem with the school. In this case, it's very narrowly drawn to apply just to immigration requests, but it also applies to every law enforcement officer. Curious if that press needle of what the committee was thinking about.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. Jill? Yeah. Yeah. I had specifically flagged for Jill the question about how you need to frame the connection, the legal resources.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, feel free. You wanna add something here? Which section are we? Section five, two, three, Adele, can you hear us?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Yes,

[Jill Martin Diaz]: it's a little bit Yeah, the sound is a little echoey, but I'm listening very carefully. I understand that we're moving to the provision on page five at subsection three.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, I think it's subsection five. We're looking at the section that defines immigration related matter.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Yes, I mean, my reading, I tried to play scenarios when I was reviewing subsection five and imagine if there's any types of documentation, other documents that are not included in this non exhaustive list that would be excluded. Particularly, the question was raised with VAP about whether this would limit the ability to effectuate a judicial standby guardianship order from the probate division. And I don't believe so because if if a a probate division has ordered temporary standby guardianship and that guardianship triggers at the time of a of the parent or guardian's detainment, then presumably, it would be the the standby guardian who would be the person appearing at the school to request information about the child or pick the child up from school. Right? The the only scenarios that I I mean, I'm not as familiar with our our child welfare system, like how how law enforcement interacts with DCF activity in Vermont, but I can imagine that there would be law enforcement involvement in a standby guardian's effectuation of the standby guardianship. Like, the standby guardian now has the judicial order clarifying that they are the standby guardian, and then they would presumably the school to communicate about the

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: child. But

[Jill Martin Diaz]: I don't know if there was another if an issue was raised or if I'm maybe I'm not understanding the question.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Go on. I think there I think there are two separate sections that we're not talking about.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You were asking about the guardian Right. Advocacy partnership.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. On page three, the original piece was to look at the language to make sure that we're we're directing superintendents in the right direction to to help a student understand their rights and create a student, a standby guardianship.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: then subsection five on page five is broader than that. It's not just about stand by guardianship. Does that?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, think so, on page three, subsection D, right,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the guardianship,

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and this is just a procedural thing, and it's only, it's optional, but it's just to the greatest extent, practically. If a superintendent destiny wants to, can partner with some type of legal or immigration advocacy institution, they should, that provide assistance. That's kind of outside the scope of the law enforcement peers, right? This is when you have law enforcement at school trying to get a student or information about a student. That would be, I think they're two separate things, but I wanna make sure that the committee understands.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead, Jill.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Yeah, thank you for clarifying that we were jumping back. So I'm on page three and looking at the provision. I would note about the way that this, that subsection D is currently worded is that depending on the program, the legal or immigration advocacy program, the service or the duties of the of the legal workers, the attorneys providing the the legal service, the duties might be oriented to either the student or the student's parents or guardians at risk of detainment. And so a more inclusive way to describe subsection d might be to if the committee was, you know, was interested and amenable to introduce, provide assistance to a student and or their guardian. Because from our institutional perspective, there's there are many more, legal workers in Vermont who are available to provide service oriented toward a parent who's concerned about their child's welfare in the event of their detainment rather than child attorneys. But, otherwise, I find that having the inclusive or partner with a legal or immigration advocacy institution, that would support that that broader definition because there are many paralegal advocacy organizations that have the technical expertise needed to help families plan, and it's I think it's it's prudent in our resource constrained environment to give schools the option of of seeking out their assistance from legal or paralegal providers.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're getting some consent, Steven. Yes. Happy to make that change if anyone's adding that. I think the only thing I would remind you about is a assistance to a student, or to the student's guardian, however you wanna word that. You know, the guardian's been detained by Immigration Authorities, that's a much more legal hurdle, as far as representation. We're not saying representation, it's so want make sure we're clear about that. Think maybe something to think about, as to how much that expands that responsibility of the legal, it's hard for me to say, advocacy institution. If that's a much bigger responsibility, that makes sense. The student is one thing, the student is guardianless, right? They don't have someone to take care of them about it. I think that's the situation that this paragraph is meant to respond to, but adding the guardian, I think, is reasonable. However, is that something that most of these institutions can do?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: May I ask a clarifying question?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's play it out, Senator. Phil, if you were My question would be, isn't it more We're not directing them that they have to, it's more of an option?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Yes. And I'm actually I'm glad that Rick just named that because on first read, I received version 1.3 very close in time to the hearing, so I apologize I didn't leave with this question. But I I was not clear whether subsection d was an affirmative authority, you know, an optional encouragement of schools to proactively assist students at whose, you know, whose family situation means they are at risk of experiencing guardian detainment to proactively put into place a standby guardianship plan because that happens before anyone's been detained. So to to the process of of creating a standby guardianship is that the guardian at risk of detainment, the subject child, and the proposed standby guardian get together with legal assistance providers in moments of calm and proactively put into place a plan that would only trigger in the event of the guardian's detainment. But it it was interesting because when I first read subsection d, I also wasn't clear on whether that temporal, like, imploring the schools that, like, it this would be helpful in advance. Once a detainment's already happened, then I agree. The only person left to to help is the student.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So I think the way we had, just to play this out, the way I had interpreted it was we were looking at after the fact and that it would be just the student. You're raising a different possibility.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I, so

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Haven't we dealt, we dealt with that with the bill last year. Stand by guardianships? Yes, and by guardianships. So

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Well

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And this is the form, this is about having to, this is basically knowing who to call.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is like social services. This is not legal. This is something's happened to the students, and they need help.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They need help.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, what's in my mind, and Jill can confirm or deny this, you know, but very early in the unfolding of this policy, there were students at CBU who essentially received a letter saying, you need to self deport or we will come to school and get you. And my recollection is lamenting with Vap and Jill that that was a very scary letter, but they they never no one ever put them in touch with an attorney to talk about the validity of that letter and their options. And I'm not blaming the school district. They just it was really early and we weren't broadcasting this all over the place that there is legal help. So they self deported. I mean, they had a goodbye party at the school and they self deported. So, like, maybe I was reading the language and had separated it mentally from guardian detainment that maybe we could just make sure superintendents have made themselves fully connected to or aware of immigration and legal advocacy services to connect their students when anything, when they have a communication that's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: I think it's asking a lot of your superintendents, maybe if they had just an extension to it, so you don't have that, all that knowledge, just say, Hey, we have the BAAB that-

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, Perhaps we can, it says to the greatest extent possible, and perhaps whatever we can direct them to do the greatest extent possible, it could be broader than guardianship matters just because I know that superintendent was desk was spending a lot of time on this question, just not within it, maybe their own internal counsel, but not with an immigration attorney because they didn't know that was available.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Yeah. They know about the VA. We're making that false. Well, you go. But to have them give counsel or even recommend, say, nope, I understand you're having an issue. Here's some orgas an organization should reach out

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to So no, this is the part, to the greatest extent possible, partner with, provide assistance to a student, but maybe not make it narrowly focused on around guardianship, but a student that is concerned, you know, I don't know how to frame it, but like, is in any kind of immigration crisis, their parents or themselves?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Senator Ram Hinsdale, thank you so much for clarifying, and yes, that is exactly how that CVU example went last last year. And I agree that then one like, a simplified fix might be to include if you know, that the institution will that will provide assistance to a student in the event that they or their guardian might experience might become detained by immigration authorities, that they or their guardian. And it's just a matter of recognizing that, like, while I recognize that the statute specifically calls on the school not to affirmatively collect unnecessary private information, that could have the effect of excluding kids' access to school. If a young person were to share with school as the two young girls did at CVU, hey, I got this letter, that then there is this, you know, invitation, this encouragement from the legislature that the school reach out to appropriate legal counsel to be able to provide very technical advice on on what that person what their options are, because it's true that those people those two young people had legal claims that they were not aware of before they self deported.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This is all great to hear. Subsection c does have this at the immigration resource subsection where the AG's office gives schools material. Maybe these things can work together. Hopefully the agency's office has resources to come up with a good resource packet or website for schools to use. So I can see subsection C kind of helping bridge that gap between a student getting a letter and a parent being detained or deported. In all ways, I think helps maybe get a better as far as you want that to be more, not just being detained, but also immigration questions that students may have, either a letter or something else that they receive.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So can you take a stab at that? Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Chair, may I ask a question about subsection C1 while we're on it? Sure. Was just

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: We're forecasting on H3. H3, okay.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Yes, thank you. I forecasting, you know, passing this statute and hoping to not have to take up the committee's time in seeking any further checks and balances on it for community safety purposes. It struck me in subsection c one that the office of the attorney general is, a politically elected position and that the perspective of the attorney general could swing greatly based on their politics and their policy agenda. And it occurs to me that the Vermont Human Rights Commission is an appointed rather than elected position that's embedded in the executive, so it tends to be less politicized and more stable, and that the Vermont Human Rights Commission attorneys might provide checks and balances complement to the office of the AG, such that And again, Attorney General Clark's office has been very cooperative with ensuring the privacy and safety rights of our non citizen community members, but I'm just forecasting into the future. I wonder if the committee it just it struck me that there wasn't a a counterbalance, that there wasn't the superintendent was not duly consulting both the more politicized office of attorney general as well as the a political executive embedded for my human rights commission.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: They're very

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: very all the time. Yeah. They want Not necessarily on this. They just talk.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Is this so beautiful?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: what exactly are you suggesting? Just adding That we add them in as somebody who the attorney general will consult?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: To the superintendent by the Office of the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commission.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, we could try that one. Let me go to the side.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So under one and two, C1, it's gonna C, I guess my using the word consulting can be meaningless, just to give you full disclosure, We have several statutes where that phrase is used, the concern is a politicized ATC officer, which could very well happen, why would they not just say, oh, we sent an email, and they don't Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Either. I think, I mean, you know, we're gonna they're gonna be acquainted. They're gonna be elected. I know they're gonna be the elected person. And if we elect the wrong person, well, that's our problem. Right.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And it's it's still sort of uphold the constitution.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't mind I don't mind consulting. I mean, and I realize, by the way, every time you say consulting with it could be a one sixty second phone call and consult the client.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's just sort of a

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'd rather have it be the I don't wanna have it in there, but I just think that if we have to choose which entity is really gonna be responsible, I actually think it should be the one. There's other reasons that people

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I guess the question is, does the office of the attorney general, are they gonna have updated immigration information

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: for schools? Or the superintendent, you're just looking for

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the best subject matter expert. Maybe it's AOE was the last group that communicated with schools about immigration changes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: AOE is gonna seek a resource. Same question. Trudy Jones' office.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'd love for them to have a regular bulletin about immigration related matters. They just don't know if that's

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, way it's bolted versus the opportunity to be a reference is

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: two different words.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, it says they're gonna receive from, on an ongoing basis, from the superintendent, updated information and training material as provided to the superintendent by the Attorney General. I don't know how often the Office of the Attorney General's communicating

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: with us.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Or by another source.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's also an important note,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: audit has had its resources reviewed and approved by the office. Lines four and five.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we're, I mean, we're just charging the office of the attorney general with a new thing, which is to talk to superintendents and give them whatever vetted information is the most updated on immigration.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Or by another source that proved by the truth. So Jill, just remind us exactly what are you suggesting?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: I might suggest that in subsection C1, after by the attorney general and the Vermont Human Rights Commission or by another source that has had its resources reviewed and approved by both the AG and the Human Rights Commission. Because they the Human Rights Commission, you know, right now, we're all very collegial, and they both offices collab collaborate regularly with VAP on for immigration technical expertise. But I imagine that that that's situational, not in you know, enshrined.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So does the and mean twice or does it mean they have to do it together?

[Jill Martin Diaz]: I I would defer to Counselor Siegel, I believe that if you required the superintendent to consult, it would be consult both the AG and the Human Rights Commission.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then what would

[Jill Martin Diaz]: alternative of someone else.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There shouldn't be a conflict.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There shouldn't

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: be, but what it is.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well Should we ask?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. We're trying to sort out what structure we're

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I think this this one need be cleaned up. We can't we can't fit. So it the word provided is important. So you are being provided this Yeah. This this resource by two entities doesn't make much sense. So you would need to say, AG there needs to be one entity that's in charge. Either it's the AG, it's the Human Rights Commission, AOE, whoever it is that they're in charge, and they consult with either the AG or human rights, that's how I would suggest you all

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: structure it. What others put a stake around? Think it should be the AG. Does anybody else have

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, I'm on the Human Rights Commission website only because I think they they tend to issue they were they're looking into civil rights matters at schools. They tend to already be working with schools pretty regularly. The AG doesn't usually have a direct channel of communication with superintendents.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: May I add? If it's a it's a federal immigration action, I'll let you the AG would want me to So keep it simple. And then they would have assets they could make it to work so a rights commissioner that they work with all the time. Does that make sense? Yeah it's gonna be a dog pile but they should be in charge. Superintendent needs to know we're setting policy for what that is, what they should do.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: The AG makes sense.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're gonna and the AG will likely rely on Yeah. Human rights. But put a statute that's even better. Like, hey, need to talk to these people. They may have information you don't know about. Then they collaborate it, collate it, and they give it to the superintendents.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's do it that way. Okay.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll add consultation with the human rights submission. Okay. I'll work on that. I I've cleaned at three, so I will, I have doctor's appointment. I can maybe stay till 03:05, but

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, let's get through to Yeah. Page

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we're almost done. So the subsection g, after the definition of immigration related matter at the bottom, adding the word state law. Again, this mostly apply to federal agencies, so adding states and then clarifying. On page six, this is again a agent office request that nothing in this section violates federal law, specifically USC thirteen seventy three and sixteen forty four. This is the federal law that requires information sharing with the federal government. Julio Thompson, I think, testified to that. This is the these are the two statutes requested to be mentioned as not being affected by this bill. Subsection I. So this is the model policy that we all discussed last time. I had help from Beth St. James drafting this language. This came a lot of it from that place, the cell phone policy, you all passed last year, so very similar language. On before 01/01/2027, the AOE in consultation with the Office of the AG shall develop and review of this annually a model policy that reflects the requirements of subordinate B, which is the policy required section, and includes the following provisions.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: See if have that open. That, should we put on line six, the Attorney General in consults with? So

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that we're getting It's a policy. AOV tends to set Florida policy for schools, so I don't. I just want to, know, protect your interest in part, but

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think I understand why it's the way it is. Okay. That's fine.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The immigration stuff is so specific to the AG's office. Think that's kind of the sub problem that the AG's better off to have with the entire policy, I think, consultation with the AG makes sense. But again, that's your choice, obviously. The provisions we can talk about later, if you want to include certain things, you don't have to, but I put that there in case you want to. The adoption, this should look very familiar. Beginning with the twenty twenty seven-twenty twenty school year, each school board is developed, adopt, ensure the enforcement of and make available in the manner described in five sixty three-one of this title, an immigration protocol policy that should be at least stringent as the model policy held by the agency. Substitution A school board that fails to adopt a policy shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy published by the agency. Beginning, and this is the same language except for independent schools, subdivision B. On the last page, excuse me, section three, this is the guide that the AG produces in consultation with the AG, with AOE. The only change are the dates being pushed back to August, August 1 for the guide completion and then sent to superintendents on report August 31. Did we check with the

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: AG to make sure that

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: doctor I just was texted Julio.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Okay. He's He's like, well, October would work better. It being

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: better I mean, I just

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: texted the whole

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: concept just to make sure they

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So send me over to Ram Hinsdale, and you wanna think about what we're doing with the work to make sure that we're building, like, 10.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The TBD part? Yeah. And

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's just to give us something to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It means sort of like the bulleted list of things that would have to be in a model policy for it to be comprehensive enough.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, Jill, you've been helpful with that. Yeah. And and So I want to

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: note the the inquiry, that last section, that is cross referencing C1 that we just talked about with the Human Rights Commission, so I'll need to update that link to ensure they're consulted in creating that guide, because it's due, it's due by a certain time.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: So

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will update those. Do you wanna

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you wanna be on a thread with me and Jill to talk about the elements of a policy.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll be out until next Thursday, but I'll at that moment.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You know what? That's fine with me also.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But, yeah, good coffee maker. That way, can come back and I can see her tonight. Yeah. Interesting. Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good. You've got a couple of

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: things you work on. Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And it's well, it's nice to have you back in on stage then. Jill, thank you. Thanks for

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: your help. Oh, he family?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Don't have

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: to say family. We

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: have about five in case any last questions for Jill. Okay,

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thank you. Thank you all. Have a good time. Thanks. Thank

[Jill Martin Diaz]: you very much, the committee.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: are still live and going to slide Doctor. Hinsdale and we are now shifting gears to S two thirty two. We've activated the public libraries and the Department of Libraries. I'll just start off by saying that if I'm reading the committee right, Doctor. Had given us two versions. If I'm reading the committee right, we are dealing with the one that inserts 5%. Yep. Yep. And we're good, I think, final walkthrough and possible vote.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Doctor. You are gone. All right, good afternoon, Doctor. Anderson, Legislative Counsel. You have in the front of you draft three of the committee's amendment to S-two 32. Start on page one. Section one contains the bindings. That's all that I have to cover with the legalized

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: I typically

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: do not say they are your legislative findings. I have nothing to add or alter without There were investigations. Okay. Section two establishes Vermont Libraries Day as the third Monday of the month left over. Section three is the section that was just discussed, dealing with the Universal After School and Summer Special Fund, the proposed amendment amends subdivision A1 to establish grant programs managed by the Agency of Education and the Department of Libraries, then goes on, page three, first to specify that 95% of the Canada sales tax revenues deposited in the special fund is to be used by the Agency of Education, and then it has the current program language subdivision two. 5% of that tax revenue is deposited in the fund to be used by the Department of Libraries to support after school and summer programming, specifically at libraries. Now that use of libraries is broad. One of the questions that came up last time, and certainly a quick amendment, is whether that should be public libraries, not defined for purposes of this title, but elsewhere, is defined to incorporate all libraries that are open to the public.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we definitely can wind up the map desk. If we use just the term libraries, and then there is such a thing as does the private library need five zero one c three? Yes. Well, I think that's right. So the term libraries works. It's the broadest possible use of

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the term. I believe the concern that was discussed last time is whether this would be sent to, for example, school libraries, but school libraries are not independently organized, they're part of the school. Those are the substantive amendments in that section. Right at the end, in subsection B, on H4, the State Librarian is added as a member of the Advisory Committee that oversees the CUSIP and Bongartz.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: In section Should we go back to

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: that definition of libraries? Does that include post secondary school libraries?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Assuming that they are independently organized, yes, it would include the academic libraries. Section four amends some of the early education language. This is around funds for voluntary early education programs, and this allows, I mean, subsection A for those funds to be used for training for public library staff within this program. Subsection b public libraries are specifically called out as eligible for receiving some of these funds. As was previously discussed, this is a specific call out. It's not legally necessary because the library's already qualified. It's just flagging that they are.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Just going back to section three just for a sec. Do we need to put any kind of board back mechanism here for a library that the commissioner is using instance? Anything the library commission commissioner will does an annual report, but how they exercise this response might be of interest, at least for this.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: I do wanna. I thought they have a certain guideline in that grant that they're gonna follow.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're not I'm just giving them money. Not saying we. Yeah. That's not 5% sure. So we could. I mean, don't think it's happened to the committee.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But if you do that, do a thousand feet of them. But everybody has full visibility. She'd be glad to report back. We need to formalize that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Tucker, we had a concern that people were saying, wow, you're gonna open the floodgates because you're allowing the Department of Libraries to dip their fingers into this now. Is there other agencies that have, that you know of, I should say, that have apprehensive programs that could start knocking on the door for a piece of the pie, or is pretty much AOE in libraries because Because if it's not a state agency, we're, we're paying them to entertain it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The list of eligible recipients is fairly small, as you may recall from the census. I'm not aware of other agencies that have come in, but if they did, this doesn't establish some sort of binding precedent for the general assembly to entertain those requests. You're making a specific policy choice within the four corners of this bill. Anyone in the world can come forward to ask any further specific appropriations from this law. It is up to your wisdom to entertain those journalists.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So nothing

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: inhibits them from continuing to apply from AOE, for example, boys and girls, which there's a whole list of persons that are not really AOE. They're not supervised by the AOE with exception of his brand was.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Signed through exam was not.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: The boys and girls clubs were already

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I know. I'm reading off

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the list with awardees already. Right. So nothing prevents them. Yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I recall at one point we were then discussing if we need to if if we need to ensure that that, like, school like school libraries are still eligible for the 95%. Is that written in here?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Just gonna have to be. It doesn't? Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, so it's we're based Department of Libraries already has a channel where they set an equal I don't know if it's proportional, so it's kind of equal amount of money to each library that does after school. That's like $300.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: 300 And and

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: everyone's envisioning that they send a relatively equal amount of money to the same groups.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Not necessarily. I think this could be a grant program. There's no offense, but I'm thinking of much simpler grant program than the department gets.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we're really leaving it up to them. Yeah. A That gets

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to cure. That gets to several weeks. Right.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And then a live even a public library could still be part of an application for the larger quest.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They wanted to do the bigger application that we need. The whole reason for this

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: is that the libraries don't need as much money and going through the application process it's so arduous that they wanted to be able to, like Chittenden County Library might be $10,000 where you go down to a single room library, hey, if you got $2,000 we'd feel like our, for our summer program would be, and that just makes it, we're given enough vehicle to make it easier to disperse their money between the blinders. But I think

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the answer is we're not prohibiting anybody who otherwise could It's just the bottom is slightly smaller. It's 95%. So did you wanna pursue your point for to cut much weather on a report back?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I don't know. Everybody seemed comfortable. I just wanna make sure Commissioner understands that we get this spot of money that things comes comes scrutiny comes

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: with it. Anyhow, we're not more formalized. I believe she said they already have a mechanism that they can show us and have to kind of move us out. So

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the reports repeal bill is about to come over to the Senate from the House, and ask the director for that. I can repeat to you what I repeated through that process, which is that you have varying levels of oversight in the general assembly. And the most basic form of oversight is that you have the ability to call the the head of the agency to testify about the use of funds. You have the ability through multiple mechanisms to request records, to review how the money is being spent, to review the grant program documents, and the reporting requirement could build into session while our statute here would be a specific request filed automatically and affirmatively by the agency ongoing. But that comes with the determination of the value about the information you're receiving.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: Where

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: are you ending with that? The Goldman. The most simple is not gonna keep this open. Okay. Sent to this person. So now we're

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: on section five? We are on section five. These were the updates within the duties and functions of the department. First, to clarify that these are digital and physical collections that are overseen by the department.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Digital or? That is correct,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: with the exception of one digital and physical. It was part of the secretionary medical leave in subdivision for the collection may be composed of digital and amphysical detergents. At the end of that same subdivision, the other change that he made in the section was to eliminate the reference to the book wags, but And to update my book around in the library.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Book wagon.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And with section six, this is the construction language. Construction is a statutory construction to ensure that municipal corporations, by virtue of having an appropriation to a privately incorporated library do not have the authority to appoint the trustees of that privately incorporated library. This is to correct an interpretation of this section of law. In section seven, these clarifying language around municipal bonds or library infrastructure, libraries already qualify for municipal bonding support. This was one of those clarifying callouts make sure that the libraries were aware that there's bonding eligibility. Section eight, we're on page seven. We're gonna move into page eight shortly. The next two sections deal with grant programs. First, performance grant programs that go through RPCs and regional development corporations. As part of the application, you have asked any service providers to address and demonstrate capability and willingness to assist public libraries. So libraries are going to be included as part of the consideration of the eligibility grant. Same in section nine for municipal bylaw modernization grants, the regional municipal planning commissions, when they apply for these grants, will be required to update the utility and facility element of the municipal plan and address specifically library facilities as part of that. We're on the last page. Section 10 repeals the audiovisual revolving fund. From what I understand, the testimony committee received this fund is empty and debunked. So it's revealed. Section 11 is the effective date, 07/01/2026.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I've focused on updating the different plans or doing the facilities.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: I remember I had a concern about that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just so what's your concern? Sorry about that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That we are we have put additional money into helping municipalities update their plans. It's it's not an easy thing for small municipalities to do, and I don't think we should add any additional planning requirements to their municipal plans. It usually becomes a deterrent from gathering the resources together to update their municipal plan of all the add. And they need that for our housing. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to receive the right oh, this is for the this in order to receive a municipal level modernization grant, municipality shall, or instead, add a housing element. And so now we're saying, add an element to the bounty, whatever he's spent.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So to be clear, this is an element of the municipal plan that is already required separately in law. But for purposes of accessing this grant program, this amendment would require them to update that component of their municipal plan in order to apply or support under the So updated just because of the So that, why would we do that? Because they don't the plans get updated almost cycle. So we're saying that in order to apply for this grant, you have to update your plan, and that is a fair amount of work in. Why are

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we doing that? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I can't speak to the why, the intent, or the policy. I can tell you that functionally, it is putting libraries in the same position as the other required updated criteria in the plan. So, if we were to pull up 24 BSA section 4,307, you would see that there's a number of required updates before you can apply for the grant. So in the preceding subdivision, it requires that the municipal plan be updated as to its housing. Right? And functionally, this is putting libraries in the same position as those other callouts from the state, saying that when you're updating your plan for purposes of eligibility, you'll also have to update the provisions So related to your

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it's not going affect some owners because they're going to doing it anyway.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, it is it's another it's it's another kinda big ask to access the bylaw modernization grant, which we really want towns to access and we've put, I don't know if it's written exactly this way here, but we've used this section recently for housing and climate resilience. I, so my concern was that we kind of agreed already to put a big burden on them and then add more money to the bylaw modernization grants. This isn't coupled with a larger effort to have their bylaw modernization incentivize certain benefits from the state.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, go ahead.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So I think they're only gonna be required to update or to require re request this grant in four years. Right? That was what they said. If could could they update the common plan just that this section of it?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They could do they could do whatever they want. This is if they're gonna get these, like, 75 to $150,000 by law and modern. Maybe sometimes less. But You

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: know, you could almost make the argument this isn't even our jurisdiction.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think I said that. I think I said it's, gun ops or

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: a Right?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This is about municipal bylaw grants, one of those grants.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What's that doing? That job.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: I I think it's striking out.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. I I think if we wanted to bring this intention of Yeah. On the other management resources for the economic and all the do

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: that. Yeah. I

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure how big a deal it is to add it because we're just talking about

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: It's it's work hours that you can Yeah. I'm That's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: one and a half.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Fine. Why don't we do that? Why don't we just so we'll we'll I say, why don't we? But Teacher was a child. What does it make sense to people who just write section nine? Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's not fun. What about his grandkids? Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You're all.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, what are the performance grants? What are we talking about there?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: These are grants for Regional Planning Commissions and Regional Development Corporations to update those RDC plans. So there's a generic term used so that they can apply either to the Regional Planning Commission or the Regional Development Corporation that is established under that chapter of law. The service provider, which could be either applies for a grant to support the economic development planning for that region. And as part of that, you have a very similar call out that the service provider has to demonstrate a willingness to assist and support libraries and is taking library facilities into consideration with the developments of the Mutual of Mutual Mutual.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: With the development of the regional, so are we talking about RPCs? So this is the, so A is really the RPC corollary to section nine, which was municipal.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: They're actually both regional planning commission related. One is just about regional development corporations, and then the other is a grant program to support updating the municipal plan of final modernization. Yeah.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: You

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: said they were already required, right? Said they were already required to do this?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So that was when we were talking about the Municipal Bylaw Modernization grants and updating the municipal plans. Yes, libraries are already one of the facilities that are So do

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: we need to say that again? Fearfuls?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: This is a call out for those seeking section regional development corporations and RPCs that are acting as the service provider for updating the regional development plans. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we've we because we touched on these bylaw modernization grants for the last three years in economic development for our housing builds, we took a lot of testimony from Department of Housing and Community Development on how these grants are getting out the door. The many communities that don't have municipal zoning and bylaws because even that is cumbersome for them and who tends to uptake this, and then we had a rural index that was coming into play for communities that don't have a lot of staff. I wouldn't do this in a vacuum. Like, there's a lot

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: of So I think that's a problem. So One. So one off the go would be for somebody to make a motion to approve minus sections eight and sign.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I make a motion that we approve. That's two more seconds. I was actively updating the draft, 3.2

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So it would

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: be to strike sections eight and nine and renumber accordingly. Yep. And it will be draft 3.2, timestamp two twenty seven, twenty point six, 03:22 p f, and as soon as this saves, I'll send the PDF to the committee. So I can just say 3.2. And because I don't

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: have only one. Or do you wanna see it first? I move that we approve bill bill s two three two three point two.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Two. Prepare section. Yep. So we have a motion on the table. Discussion?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Just quickly say, this wasn't by design, but it's great that Vermont Libraries Day lands on my birthday. Wasn't in petty.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, should do that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Or is the other thing

[Jill Martin Diaz]: coming out?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Dude, now we gotta change

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Let's see.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: 2027. 2024. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah. Think that defines.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is that an is that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: an all

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I guess? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Good discussion.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Hope you're ready. So the clerk shall call the roll.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Humphrey? Yes. Senator Bob Hinsdale?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Williams? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. I have just asked and wanted a quick side conversation whether Senator Weeks would be willing to report it out. I guess I think he said yes. No.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'll take one for the team. He has

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: enthusiastic volunteer.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Check that out. So if

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we have if that had that remote, here. Very good. Yeah. We are so just to recap the video here. We're we'll have a draft of something for the larger effort when we come back on Tuesday. We are having people back on Tuesday the seventh on Tuesday with the next chapter. Thank you very much.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we're gonna leave off, like, over the about the adventure.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Where they have Essex, Capitol Grid Way.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Gonna head back from now.

[Jill Martin Diaz]: Uh-huh.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're gonna try to we're gonna get them in on Tuesday as well. So our Tuesday, we're, you know, looking like we're gonna have. Yep. I just got it. Okay. Three point two. With that, we are adjourned.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Good job, y'all. Thank

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Senator David Weeks)]: you