Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're live.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: my gosh. My water bottle is

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was looking all over. Oh, I was like, woah. Alright.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Kitchen Committee on March 12. We're going to continue our work on sort of the follow ups to act 173 or the service, disturbs, whoever you want to call it. With with our attorney and but just first, let me say to the committee that I have given the the little questions that came up on 22704, Rick has come over to 03:30, just to be able to spur a quick discussion on those concrete points. I think we find that we're fine with this type of discussion. So we started a walkthrough of a potential new draft two days ago and in the meantime, some work on it, but that not reminding where we left off and what wanna go back to the beginning?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's up to you. I can that's St. James off at the legislative council. We left off.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So we're not doing March. Oh, I forgot about that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We were gonna do March. Thank you. Yes. Yes. We did March. Thank you. And that was really just those few words that we read words we would want you to add. Quaint, draft, and evoke. Yes. Do

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want me to put it up on the screen or do you have it?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It does. Okay. Yeah. We got it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Already say anything about it. No. Don't I mean, we don't have we have to really An instance of it's a committee amendment to f m three thirteen as introduced. It's an instance of amendment in section two in subdivision one d following the words for prevented from accessing CTE. You would insert the words for lack of capacity.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's a good change. So I

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: think first we have to adopt in that bill. People get our. I don't know. Oh, okay. I'll be done.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to look for Heffernan?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: He happens to be let out in the lounge. Otherwise, I, you know, I'll

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just peek in the lounge. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: You know, record of action on the amendment or the make this change? Call. Okay. A good choice. I I did the same thing at judiciary. What did that what?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Hey, Steve. We're voting on three one three.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Know? They'll just you didn't have

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: to do that. Okay. We can

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do it. So Okay. But I'll defer

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: to you. I don't know. It was a couple weeks back.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: We just dropped off. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we'll we'll wait for a second. I think it's, yeah, In a second.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. Quick. I'm actually in front of you. Minor word changing pretty much.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes, if you recall, it's next year. So the first thing is you have to adopt the investment, assuming that we a good fit. Do you want to make that, receive a motion for the amendment first? All those in favor?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Aye.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Aye. Okay. So we've adopted the amendment. Now the question is, the motion to move forward on S-three 13 as amended.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Good.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'll get a motion. So move. Okay. So So

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: an act relating to transition to the more under tech education. Right. Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yes. Senator Mark Hinsdale?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes. So for weeks? Yes. Senator Williams? Yes. Senator? Yes. Six. And then your report. Wanna do it? Oh, Do what? I'm just gonna

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I got to just go. Oh, I

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: got a. Wanna do what? I don't know. I got libraries. Yeah. I don't know. Okay. Oh, okay. Great. Definitely. That's great. Okay. You're. Yep. That's the. Right? That's because they didn't. Was. Yeah. Doctor. Cameron, how are you? Any

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: better than Harvey Ears. Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're back to was easy. We're back to gotten this one decision. It's too hard to say that we had left off on it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we left off on eleven. We didn't we finished section 10 for the walkthrough, so we would have left off at Section 11, but between Tuesday and today, you and I chatted and I made some changes before section 11. So do you want to go back to the beginning and look at those changes, or do want to walk forward from section 11 and then go back and look at the changes?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we finish and go back? Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to share my screens?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You all have a copy. Well, yeah, people at home are watching the video. Okay. But

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're gonna go to page 27.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Folks ready? Think so. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 11 is another, is some session law language requiring AOE to keep the state board and the general assembly up to date on the bulk. The discussions, studies, and activity among districts to move voluntarily toward creating new larger school districts, and this should be pursuant to section six of the internal cross reference that I have failed to update. So I made a note of that of the fact. So the voluntary mergers and the data and other information collected in connection with education quality standards and related on-site education quality reviews, including data and information regarding the equity of educational opportunities, academic outcomes, personalization of learning, safe school climate, high quality staffing, and financial efficiency. This is language borrowed, if not verbatim, then almost verbatim from Act 46. There is no date associated with this. You may wanna consider making this an annual report back to you all or tying it to something. This language just says regularly review and update you all. But I guess that's technically a policy choice.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Think you got an annual report.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, you get an annual report, but this is, so that is a policy choice. You could ask for this information to be included in their annual report. You could also have it be a separate report to you all because it is very specific about what they are supposed to be providing to you. But again, that's all policy. Right? What's happening out in the field basically? Section 12, we moved to a new reader assistance heading on page 27, line 16, section 12. We're now in exploration and transition grants. Section 12 is another piece of session law that creates some exploration transition grants and requires a report back to you all. The first thing this section starts with is a notwithstanding 16 BSA, section forty-twenty five. Pop quiz. Why are we so we're gonna give people money out of the Ed Fund. Why are we not withstanding 16 BSA forty twenty five? The poison pill. If you appropriate money out of the Ed Fund for something that is not specifically enumerated in section four to 25, the property tax chapter is repealed. We haven't had an occasion to talk about that much this year, so I thought I would just highlight it here. So we're doing some appropriations out of the Ed Fund for something that is not specifically enumerated in this statute, so we're gonna not withstand that statute so that you don't repeal the property tax. The first grant in this section, subdivision one, Supervisory Union Transition Facilitation Grant. Within 15, and again, this is all starter language, you may get testimony that really refines what needs to be in these sections, but this is your starter's language. Within fifteen days following the date each transitional board of each supervisory union created pursuant to this act holds a meeting to elect a chair and other necessary officers.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Pursuant to section 5A, the Secretary of Education shall from the Education Fund pay each transitional board a supervisory union transition facilitation grant in the amount of $250,000 So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I got that amount, just so you know. Okay, good. They seek the superintendent. You're probably not right, but we'll have to get some testimony about whether that amount is. So just circle it and focus on it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this grant would be going to the SUs that you all created that need to create transitional boards to move towards operation, being operational. And so this grant would be to provide that gap funding. The second on page 28, the study committee grant.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So just to make sure everybody remembers this discussion, that we have the board get formed on day one, whatever day one is, and then they have a year to become operational. In the meantime, all the SUVs are operating. And, but we need the year though, this is to give money, the $2.50 for salaries and other things, consultants, attorneys, hiring of the initial, perhaps superintendent for some period of time as we get near to the time it becomes operational. This is to fill in that that year to get it operational before the magic day that it becomes fully operational. Just that we can't wait till then to fund it. It has to have some funding ahead of that in order to be ready to go. So that amount times each supervisor's year. It's yes. Right now, it's 250,000 times 11. One year, one dinner. Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there are appropriations that come after this for all of these grants. Studying committee grant. So first grant, subdivision one is for supervisory unions, now we're talking about school districts. Secretary of Education, Chao, from the Ed Fund, reimburse up to $10,000 of fees paid by two or more school districts for facilitation, legal, and other consulting services necessary for the initial exploration of the advisability of forming a new union school district for study committees that that can be in pursuant to chapter 11 on or after 07/01/1826, pursuant to section six of this act to defer on that regard for a

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So is this in the grade law or is this district's,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you're doing the other six, eleven, 11.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Is there, again, not fully up to speed. There a different pot of money for the great law

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: administrators to to give their own talks? No. But we'll talk about why. That's a reason for that. It's a great question, but we'll we'll see why when we go back to the section that we worked on.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So subdivision 2 is study mergers and subdivision three is after you have actually completed, well not completed, there has been a positive merger. After voter approval of a plan of merger that was developed by a study committee pursuant to section six of this act on or after 07/01/2026, Secretary of Education may pay, Again, this is language modeled after Act 46. The may is a curious word to me that you may want to consider whether that's a may or a shall, and if it is a may, is there any guidance you wanna provide to the secretary over when or when not to give that grant? A, can transitional board with the New Union School District, a transition facilitation grant, the add fund equals to the lesser of 10% of the base amount, multiplied by the greater of either the combined enrollment or the average daily membership of the larger districts on October 1 of the year in which this vote was taken, or $300,000 whatever is less.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this came, this was, did you, this is exactly you said? I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think we updated the number, we doubled the numbers. I think it was 5%, 150,000 in Act 46.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The May was there, if we

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe so, yeah. That's odd.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Got some more things about that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, and here we go. Sorry, page 29. You do give some direction here. A new school district, it's like someone else wrote this. A new school district form pursuant to the recommendation of a study committee pursuant to section six of this act shall be eligible for a grant under the section if it has an average daily membership of 3,000 or more students or at least 15 separate towns or cities located within the new district's geographical boundaries.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So not to circle it and think about it, This could still be read as optional whether they're payment habits. Yes. Shall be eligible. It's it's discretionary and still so like my sense is we don't want it to be discretionary. It can be this Probably wanted to get that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then merger support grants shall be available through fiscal year 2032. Eligible newly formed union school districts shall only be eligible for a merger support grant pursuant to this section during the fiscal year following voter approval of the plan of merger. So this is not an in perpetuity. Under Act 46, the merger support grants were essentially in perpetuity until certain conditions were met. And so this language is limiting for this bill. Merger support grants are only available through 2,032. You're only eligible once and that's after the first year, the fiscal year following the voter approval of the plan of merger.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: that's kind of like an incentive to voluntarily nerd, right? Is that? Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then subdivision four, I'm on page 29, line 12, beginning on 12/01/2026 and annually thereafter until 12/01/3031. AOE is required to submit a written report to the Education and Money Committees with information regarding contemplated and active school district mergers and a proposed appropriation amount for the applicable fiscal year to cover the costs associated with the grants created pursuant to this section. So, you need to figure out how much to appropriate each year if you want to fund these grants, and it's going to vary depending on the activity in the field. And so, you're asking AOE to give you a report back and a guesstimate of what that appropriation

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: should Hopefully it's a good problem to have.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then it specifies that the report shall include a list of school districts that are members of active study committees, the date the study committee was formed, the status of each study committee, a list, I'm on page 30 now, a list of anticipated new union school districts that are likely to be formed during the applicable fiscal year and forming members of the anticipated average daily membership of each. And the proposed appropriation amounts, and I should add in there the superintendent, the supervised reunion, reference to the supervisor union grant, and then the recommended appropriations. And then section 13 on page 30, line 11, is the appropriation. So, we're gonna use that same not with appropriation, are the appropriations. We're gonna use that same not withstanding language 4025, and you're gonna appropriate 2,750,000.00 for the SU facilitation grants. That's a one time situation right off the bat after this act is passed. And then subsection B is the merger or the whatever you call it. It's the study committee grant. So page 30, line 17, subsection B, the sum of 50,000 is appropriated from the Ed Fund to AOE in fiscal year twenty seven for study committee grants. So you're just keeping a guess in fiscal year twenty seven as to how many folks are going to be eligible for this grant.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we're really, we're guessing five within the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then C is a similar guess for the merger support grant. The most someone could get under a merger support grant is 300,000. So you are contemplating no more than two votes being eligible, completed a vote to merge in fiscal year twenty seven. I think that's very optimistic.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then subsection D allows the funds to be carried forward until fully expended or reverted. So if you don't use it this year, it carries forward next year and hopefully AOE will come in with recommendations for whether that's sufficient or whether you need to add to it for the next fiscal year. Now we get into, we've got a new reader, it's heading on page 31, line seven. We've got some language related to the foundation formula. So I am going to walk through this language and I will do my best to answer questions, but I just want to acknowledge that I am not your education finance attorney. And should we get questions that I can't answer, we'll just find the time to get John in here. So section 14 is an amendment to section four zero one subdivision 16, which is the base amount of the foundation formula. This amendment changes

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: base amount from 15,033, which is what was passed in act 73 to $16,780. And it inflates the base amount forward instead of from fiscal year twenty five from fiscal year twenty seven on line 16.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, rationale.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So, you're I was actually gonna ask if

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: we could go back for one second. So, I don't know if I've missed this or if I'm just misunderstanding something. I'm looking at top page 31. The sum of $600.00 for emergency support grants pursuing to twelve three. And I'm seeing that a district can receive 10% of the base education amount established. So on and so forth for 300,000. Obviously, there's going to be more than two districts merging. It's gonna be a lot more than that, but not how is the 600,000 squaring with the, much higher number than it would be tested?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's it's on line 15. It's equal to the lesser of first. And you're gonna do an annual appropriation. So this is your guess for who would be eligible for a merger support grant of fiscal year twenty seventh, which starts on July.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the guess is we'll get to so let's back up here for a second because there's two things going on at once. One is the formation of the SUs. So that's one thing with their own grants that's separate from this. This is the estimate, the guess, that within those 11 SKUs, no more than two districts will get to the point of going through the whole process of-

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: After you've had a

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: voter Voter, yes. Exploring it, reaching consensus among the boards, and then get the point of actually voting, have the votes to do it to get to that point. As Beth said, this is likely an optimistic. So this is for the SUs? No. It's for the S this is for the districts within the SUs.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. I'm seeing new union school district. So Yeah. Thought.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Union school districts are school districts that are composed of one or or two or more member towns. Okay. Like, CBU.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Got so this is for that specific Yes. Okay. I get it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Once any merge under your current law without changing anything about your school district definitions or anything, if you are requiring two school districts to merge, the only option is to form a union school district. The only other types of school districts you have, taking out of the equation interstate districts, town districts, city districts, incorporated districts. So unless you're going to be granting a charter to an incorporated district, or changing the municipal boundary lines so that Essex and Westford merge into one town, when you're asking the school districts to merge, the only option is to give you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Makes sense now to get back to your PowerPoint with the pictures. That would help out.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that might be the best thing I've heard all week. Okay. So the main thing I wanna express on these appropriations is they're all aspirate. They're all guesstimates, except for the supervisory union, that for 13 subsection a on page 30, line 13, that is 250,000 times 11.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: This is gonna be separate funding from the education and tribution fund.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: From the fund. As it come out of the fund, we've gotta raise It comes out of the fund, right?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Which we raise on property taxes. Okay. Then there's the other resources in there, but yes. Anything that's coming out of the Ed Fund has the potential to affect property taxes. Okay, foundation formula. So we're changing the base amount of section 14 and we're changing when you inflate it from the fiscal year you inflate it from.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So people want to get that number is not arbitrary, the 1670. The foundation for me, the 1503 was based on 2,024, not the E, F 1.4. So, I think in the meantime, we've had increases of effectively five and a half and five and a half and so this raises the base to where we are now. It's a new starting point because otherwise if we left it where it was at the 15 in the meantime we've gone up five and a half and five and a half by the time the financial formula came into being with its mobile player we'd have a drop of where we are now. So this raises the base to meet the reality of today.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: That makes sense. The $16.17, that's down the road with inflator.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The inflator is huge to that. And

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: then that's what a lot of bills neglect to do when we try to, when we don't need it now, we try to throw up the big $100 now to $100 a week.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So it's higher starting point, but with the same control rate of increase once it goes back to standard. And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: now we are we're doing something here in section fifteen and sixteen that looks scary, but it's not. So section 15 repeals act 73, section 35, which is where all of your waiting changes live. And the reason we needed to repeal it is in section 16, you're going to amend law that hasn't taken effect yet. So what section 16 does is it reincorporates all of the language from Act 73 and makes an extra change. So you're not doing anything, not changing anything. See, all of this language that's underlined and not highlighted is from Act 73. The only change is in grade level weights. Six six. All app 73 language. So if you jump to page 36, line nine, subsection D, determination of weighted long term membership. This is where all of the different weights live. And this highlighted language is new. The Pre K weight was part of Act 73. I had to change the way it was worded to make this work, which is why it's highlighted, but Act 73 included this same weight of negative point five four. What's new in this bill is line 20 subdivision C, which is a weight for grades nine through 12 of point one zero.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this is designed to reflect the fact that we know that it can cost 12.5% more than education. The AMB data is 712.5% higher for reliable tuition than elementary school and so this it probably should have been 12.5 but it's made of 10. So something to reflect the fact that spending in Vermont on seven through 12 is 12.5% higher on average than for K through six, pre K through six. So it just reflects reality. And their study is coming. They could change it a year later, but so this becomes the default. So the default is either, by definition, a $3,000 cladget from what it costs to educate child, school seven to 12 and a month, to reflect an incurred reality that based on the study it may get it. Really the question is which one is the default starvation or what we know it costs, formation of the default of what we know it costs, and then we'll take it from the study a year. That makes sense. Yes. Did you, in development of this amendment, did you start figuring out the cost of CTE? Is that ever entered into the? No. Okay. Didn't get the CTE. No, the CTE weight yet. That's one of the things with that. That'll be part of the study that we'll see a few years ago now. In the short run, CTE does not go into way it always has.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Although we have had people raise concerns about the maps and how they affect their current CTE access.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: More of the more of the The geography. I take it more of the the house maps because the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Interesting. I mean

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Because I don't think

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on the margins. I don't know if they've

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: got I don't think the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We did change any history of life. Change anything.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. I was saying. Okay. I was always saying something. Yeah. I'll do it. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. And you'll be starting to trade.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah. Just embrace that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. That's and then we strike the electro.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, hi. What's up? Hi.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thanks. We good on the weights?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think so.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So, again, because of drafting conventions, there's a whole bunch of language we don't need to pay attention to. Jump to page 40, line 13, section 17 is the next section.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: 36 you had highlighted?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We just went through that, that's Yeah, the

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I would do it. Page

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 40, line 13, section 17 is amending the effective date section of Act 73. And this section takes out the contingencies for the foundation formula to become effective. So section 61A shall take effect on 01/01/2027. That was related to property tax classifications, I believe. I got wrong, I'm sorry, it's related to tax sub capacity. Act 73 had a contingency related to new school district boundaries being enacted. That contingency is being removed. And then subsection F is the foundation formula, essentially. You'll see all of these sections, tuition, transition to cost factor foundation formula, educational opportunity payment, etcetera. This is your contingency language. So the following sections shall take effect on contingencies are all removed and the date is changed to 07/01/2029. So this change would have the foundation formula taking effect with no contingencies on 07/01/2029.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Seven years later from Yes. '73, they get

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the contingencies and subsection should also take effect Oh, I'm sorry, are also deleted related That was related to some tuition provisions that are no longer in here. And then you have the entire, this entire bill would take effect on 07/01/2026, except that sections 14, which is related to changing the base, and section 16, which is the weights, would not take effect until 07/01/2029. And I think Senator Bongartz, I have failed to put in language. I think I forgot to repeal something related to tuition, the changes in tuition. So I'll look at that for the next draft. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, you have the piece?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want to go back and look at some of the other changes? We just, you know, there's a lot that we've just walked through.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Let's look at the other changes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. We're

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna go back to the very beginning of the bill, draft 4.1. Changes section one goals. No changes to section two, which is it's a redesignation to free up some statutory numbers. Section three is where you are creating your new supervisory unions. And I've gone through and I've put in You'll see if we start with this chapter, or sub chapter starts with supervisory unions and stays divided into the supervisory unions. Oh, and then I just list all of them out on page two. And then starting on page two, line 16, there's an individual statute laying out the name of the supervisory union, the name of their member school districts, and the name of the member municipalities of each school district. Except all I have right now are the names of the member municipalities. I have not had an opportunity to go through and match up each town to a school district. That will take quite a bit of time, I so haven't done that yet. But what you have here is each supervisory union and the towns that would be included in the supervisory union. This section, three of the bill, includes the 11 supervisory unions and every supervisory union supervisory district, which is also a supervisory union, in the gray area.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, we should talk about why. So when we talked about this two days ago, which we recall, had we talked about the 11 that are identified on the map that we're calling it the gray area or you refer to as the blob but it's a gray area. And within that there are 19 SPs which are also supervised.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna say, at least some of them are also supervised. They all are. All.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: By definition also, it is confusing. But,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: so

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: as Beth said, we can't do in statute kind of like half the state. Just just the 11 we were looking to do and so we're now going to list and this this will get explained in more detail. Yeah. But we're listing what is actually all 30 supervisory unions some of which are SDs and the 11 will be treated the way that we talked about with the you know they'll have their districts and we'll have the two years to merge districts within those 11 and then with the 19 we're looking for the was it the board of the agency I forgot.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The board we picked the board. The board

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to come back to us with a recommendation for mergers within those other 19, but it has to be done statutorily because it will be statutorily created. It's just a little bit of a different process to get to the same place. And we'll talk about that and go through that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, so if you jump to section five, so again, section three is just taking what Senator Bongartz has provided to your committee with the name of the supervisory unions and the member municipalities. I have not independently verified that the those things match, so Yep. I've just taken what was on your committee page. And then section five, on page 17, you'll see the section heading has a new yellow word there, report. So, is transition to new supervisory unions. This is the section that talks about forming the transition board of the supervisory union. On page 18, it talks about developing the bylaws, how do you apportionate expenses, taking all actions necessary to be operational, complying with the transition of employees law. And we're adding a new subsection here that requires the State Board of Education to submit a written report to you all on or before December 1 with recommendations for adjustments to the supervisory union boundaries listed all of those SUs and SDs that were in the gray area. That's what all that highlighting is on the bottom of page 18 through 19. And then provide further direction to the State Board on line 11 of page 19, that the Supervisory Union Boundary Adjustment recommendations shall result in Supervisory Unions with an aggregate average daily membership of all member school districts within the Supervisory Union of not less than 2,752 students, which I believe is the lowest aggregate average daily membership of the 11 FUs. We make

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it as of 04/01/2014, so you shouldn't do that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought I'd have that in here.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm straight everything exactly. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will add that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So just to make sure people, this is, took me a little while to get my return on this. So we have the 19, we have the 11, we know what we're doing there, but the 19, we're looking, the board will make a recommendation to the legislature of how to merge those 19 to achieve scale, the same scale that we've achieved with the other 11 of at least, call it a little bit one, two thousand five hundred. Some of them are as small as, I think only a few 100 kids right now. Many of them are actually over that so some of them will have to merge should they not want to. But we'll get them the whole state aligned with SUs of at least about 2,500 a little bit more than 2,500 kids. The process is different from the 11 than from the 19 because it kind of has to be.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Is this program cover, I mean, you talked previously about in government operations, the committee involved in this, and and then maybe the secretary of state for for the awards, for the school awards. Yeah. Is that gonna

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: be covered in here or not? I don't the one place we we don't need it for s for the 11 SBUs because they elect their own. Although that's and I don't think

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What? Why is that? Because 11 s u's have different governance forms. Somehow we have to transition from where we are today to

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: where we are. Right.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: In the 11 model form, let alone the the great law.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The way that SCUs work is that the boards that the boards send reps send reps that from the districts and they do it themselves. We don't oh we never told an sq how they have to govern themselves. But I

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: would submit that government operations needs their fingerprints on that to bless the fact that that's in fact correct that's the way we

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: would pull this bill this bill may end up going there I don't know. Continue with that thought about how that's going to work because that's unfair. So we talked about this.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you all are confused about the difference between supervisory unions and supervisory districts, I can only imagine the work I will be doing with the government operations. Cause you guys are the experts. I would say that I know. I know. If you were to so supervisory unions are not governance units. They are administrative planning units. They do have a board and it is as Senator Bongartz has suggested. They kind of get together and decide how many from each member school district is going there. That's all the law says about it. School district governance, what you are asking folks to do in this bill is already spelled out in current law. So I don't I don't I don't, you know

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So in the gray area, that's all sick. Or in the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the gray area, you are no longer asking the gray area to merge school districts. You're actually not asking the gray area to do anything voluntarily. They can. There's nothing in law stopping them. What this change does between the draft we looked at on Tuesday and the language we're looking at now is say, instead of merging school districts in the gray area, you're going to merge supervisory unions. And because you have now given the legislature the responsibility to create those boundaries, you all have to be the ones to make those changes, but you're asking for the state board to kind of start you with some recommendations before you start changing supervisory union boundaries in the gray area.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And remember that it's also within those 19 supervisory unions there are also only 19 districts. Everybody get that? When we talk about the 19 in the gray area, supervisory unions, there are also only 19 districts

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: There you go. We're we're not. We are trying to. We are trying you go. Yeah. Just one more. Yeah. Well, it's gonna

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: make the system a lot easier. It's a convoluted process to unwind it, so we have to or to get the tickets dropping less convoluted. But I'm not thinking about that. There is something there.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you, John.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the other big change since we've walked through this draft, you can't see because I took out language. So section six is the reduction in number of school districts section, and this is where we ask everyone in the non gray area, the 11 supervisory unions, to get together, talk amongst themselves, voluntarily merge school districts to end up at 50% less school districts. There was also language in draft 3.1 that we looked at on Tuesday that required all the school districts in the gray area to do that. That language has been removed because now instead of merging school districts, you are merging supervisory unions through an act of the legislature TBD. So, subsection B asking school districts to get together and voluntarily form their new union school districts. We've listed out everything that's highlighted on page 20 are those 11 So the school districts within those 11 SUs have to get together, merge in such a way that it results in 50% less school districts across these 11 supervisory units. There is no more direction. Right? Then there were a couple, there is some more highlighting in here. I mean, a couple changes to make it clear when we're talking about merging districts that we're talking about just those school districts in 11 supervisor unions. So, it added some clarifying language just to modify what we're referring to. Again, you see like on page 24, located within the supervisory unions, listed in six. B, that's where that list of supervisory unions are located within supervisory unions. So, those are the only other changes to this draft since Tuesday.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, let me make it a potentially more confusing question. That hadn't occurred to me with the nineteenth.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The gray area?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. The gray area.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're merging s at the s u level. Does that mean? I had been thinking it would also be in the district. They'd be merging OBSU in the districts. Okay. So that's the answer. So we're simply merging the larger then they can decide whether to merge the districts or not. And we're thinking that alone for now. That's as far as we're getting at merging the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In this draft,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. I think I'll slide with that for now.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a policy post Yep. For you to

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: what I'm thinking about is within the within the gray area, got the 19 that are both they are they are SU, but they're also districts. There's nineteen and nineteen. And when we if we merge at the SU level, to get them all up to the twenty five hundred twenty seven hundred we as they merge we would then actually have true SUs with two districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. If you if you have taking a supervisory district and a supervisory district and making that one supervisory union.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But you could as a matter of policy ask the board simultaneously, right? The SU and the districts, turn them all into SPs because that seems to be their model.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You get into the same delegation issues if you're asking the board to do that Right. That Tucker and I talked about. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we need to do so then sequentially, we would need to go through this process first and then visit the issue with the workers of the districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well, not necessarily. I'm just answering your question about whether the state board could merge both at the same time. The state board isn't merging anyone. That's right. They're not merging anyone. They're making recommendations.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's all it is. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Technically, you can merge school districts. Yep. Could also require them to voluntarily merge within a certain period of And if you are going to delegate that legislative power of creating municipalities, it's the same conversation that Tucker and I had about the Athens case and the case law there and the perspective that Tucker brings from municipal law about how specific you have to get in giving your direction to the state board.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. So you're thinking.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, my question is, are all of those 19 entities already has the 2,500? So why, will we contemplate the involuntary merger concept of applying to that as well after the two year voluntary merger?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's that was what that was thinking out loud. So I think that's an open pin pin in that one. My senses would Well,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and I'll be so bold as to say there's, there's a lot of consol there's a lot of consolidating administrative back end other logistical functions in Chittenden County that have nothing to do with the scale of the schools. They're just very close to each other. You know, they all have large scale food distribution and administrative operations. It they're not going to be merging school buildings anytime soon because

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: they're at capacity. In the growth path. Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But that doesn't mean we couldn't say, you all have to, you know, figure this out, and maybe that's an area where you have assistant superintendents. That has come up in many districts in Chittenden County in light of the redistricting conversation, is there are places where people would be happy to be an assistant superintendent instead of a superintendent.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. But you've raised the blood cell. That's an issue we need to think through. So we put a bit in that. And so it turns out yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just gonna say, you've at you've set this kind of threshold at 3,000 ADM. And so for the gray area, I think it would be slightly more nuanced rather than just saying everyone needs to merge. And if you want to be consistent with the rest of the directive for mergers, you may need to be looking at the different average daily memberships in those school districts and picking and choosing who to merge in a way that you're not elsewhere.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And so we could simply say to the board, all they're doing is giving us a recommendation anyway.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you could ask the board to recommend both the merger at the SU list and

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Yes, you could do that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we just try that on? Sure. For the next draft and then we'll see. Sure.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And would you like me to give up my son the ring?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we're actually, I think

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You all done?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we're done, but on the other hand, we're only gonna be a few minutes with pretzels, so Yeah. Let's talk about it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No problem.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, yeah, want you to stick around just in case. Sorry. You injunious, just for some minutes.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I have time to be flexible, so I can yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Before we adjourn I know. Yeah. Before we adjourn,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: because we have some good intel collectors and damages. If there's any kind

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: of insights into what the house may be proposing, just give you an update because we haven't had any kind of joint conversations with them for a while. Any kind of insights would be helpful to see what what they're thinking is.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's St. James, the Office of Legislative Counsel. I have no information for you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's go to. When was

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the last draft of whatever it is that I need to

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is there is no committee bill.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What about, you know, like, Collins?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The contract language? I don't remember when the last draft was. It was certainly before town meeting. Right?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So I got the record.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Rick Siegel with the office. Motion of counsel. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we had, you might do the floor thing on fifty seven. And so You still did a very good job.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you. I was.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Besides my off notes, off script commentary, the sum are even solving.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, two things in merchant are not, they're not, it's on page, well, I'm sorry, it doesn't have. In sub one four eight six under immigration protocols. Two, actually. Two twenty seven. 2.7. Under the under well I said D, but I'm not sure what to say. I guess it's D. It is D, yep. Just D. Did you watch it? I was there.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: You were there. Okay, yeah. I

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there. Heard it all.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you know the two issues. Right. The one that Senator Ruth raised about this sort of seeming contradiction.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To be fair, I mean, got over her comment, but I counted weird in my mind because she mentioned the ID card thing. And I don't know if people thought that was,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But that was

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: fully resolved.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Remind us. Remind us. I think you do that now.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Mean, that's right. So I I think

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: person didn't

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's talk about senator Bruce first. And his was the seeming seeming contradictions between shall not allow and allow. Right. Or not not resist. I don't see that, I don't see this as contradiction, but I think we need to just make

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: sure we're ready to go.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think it's like if you've got a door that requires a bell to get, a buzzer to get through, you don't buzz it for one reason. So

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I I I've not spoken to him about that, but I what I tend to think his argument is, and I I see it, and I have a proposal, if you all wanna see. I was kinda was working on it in the last few minutes. The argument is that on Line 14, Subdivision 2, D 2, the superintendent or designee shall not allow this person to come in without a warrant, right? And then Subdivision 3 says, however, if they enter, you shall not obstruct. So I think we all have the intent, and I think Senator Buridol said we get it. So there's a I'm gonna have some flavor that you can look at if you wanna think about it. If you're happy with

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that one. Yeah. Can try it on. Go ahead.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. He just pointed out what doesn't say well.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Whether it's in language or in practice. Me just describe.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Wants to figure that out. But also,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: why do we

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: always put it just designee rather than just, plural, that it could have more than one at the school? Did we

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: say it to the doctor? It the doctor?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Have we said? Well, like in here, it's superintendent's core designee once you come in.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's stylistic because It's a designee.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Designee. So, it's it's at

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: least one, so there could be several, but in this case, let's say there are three people who are designated. It'd be one of those three. So any one of the three could be Okay, because

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: on Line B it says, who works for the school serving as a designee, not designee of the serving, okay. I guess that covers this. He could add more than one at the school.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I understand.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, think so. Okay,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so what I've done here is, this is, again, Sender X,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it depends on who want to it

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all this floor amendment, but what I suggested here is basically striking three, two and three, redoing two and three. So this is how so one would say the same, that you, the superintendent, shall be the sole authority to admit a law enforcement officer who appears on an immigration matter, and then he doesn't need that, but at least one person. But the new language would be two, upon a law enforcement officer appearing at a school on an immigration related matter and requesting to enter a non public area of the school before admitting the officer, the superintendent, or designee shall require the officer provide A, official identification, verifying the officer's law enforcement credentials, and B, a judicial warrant that names a specific individual under arrest or subject to a search.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What if they don't request? My guess is they won't. Who was that? An IC agent. Yeah. What if it's attempts to enter?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What what is the scenario that they just that they don't identify themselves and they just simply try to block through the school door? Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't know how to It's it's also not that focused, well, door, but I think if you're, you're the two different.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Can they do that now? Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Aren't you required to identify yourself as quickly or briefly as it may be? You're required to identify yourself. US law. Oh. It depends. Depends on a number of factors. I mean,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: there's, from what I remember, we were talking about this in the judiciary, the rule is that they have to identify themselves as soon as is practical. So that could be, And I mean there's also exigent circumstances where if you're, you hop out of your car and your cruiser is chasing somebody, you're not, you know, yelling your name to introduce yourself as you're chasing somebody.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: You say it's like police. I mean, you don't identify yourself as being police. You you could, you also may not.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I mean, it it depends on the circumstance of the group, which isn't helpful.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we're trying we're trying that now. Attempts to enter. Seeks to.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think that's why it's better left vague and we could spell out in the procedural piece, like, ensuring general public safety and, like, not gendered for their property damage or loss of

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Where does the first part go about Yeah. About what they need to do? Right. About not allowing?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What if Chittenden passed me a note that said, like, So Not having access to my

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: To some of point. Not gonna cover every scenario with this write up and and the heat of the moment. Hopefully, a school official will always have a presence in mind to request some identification whether they get it or not or or this tactical scenario involved that a lot of transpires. All we can do is offer some general framework, like the intent, and it's gonna unfold as it unfolds. It's like trying to create a battle plan that evaporates upon contact. Just But I I think the point that the was making was that we said, you know, Bongartz struck because, you know, why would that bother you? Because if could So just notify somebody who whom I

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: was gonna talk to. Should we

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: That'd be local one first? That serves to happen. Could be Looking at our when we survive.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I'm I'm just saying if if I showed up, they decided that they were gonna come in. And as you said, don't try to obstruct them. So but tell tell them who knows as part of this

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I I will say there was a human wallboard yesterday at the assault. So

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And they weren't coming to the school, though. They just went out shield to shield school. Right. Happening by the school. It wasn't and I'm just seeing if you can clarify that because I don't know.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They were in vehicles. I don't know if it was on school. I believe it was on school property. Okay. And then they everyone left in vehicles, and then there was a collision. I The human wall was dwarfed around the children entering school. Okay.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Which, awesome. But if the event was happening out in the street, you you still want the school to react. Yeah. But that event is happening out in the street, just happened to be in front of the school, and it's it's a shame that it did. And the school's taken the right protocols for following into this just So to make

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am worried there there were there were lot of separate incidents that made up yesterday. It was yesterday morning that a I understand it. A wall and a barrier of educators and administrators at the school was formed Good. To protect the child or children involved. There was a separate human wall formed in front of, surrounding the residence that ICE was trying to get into later in the day.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And there, which is not

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was not a with

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: education, so I'm not gonna pursue that, but I'm just, you know, if they had a warrant, why, and if they show it, why people got, you know, if you're doing, trying to do things

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They didn't have a warrant until the afternoon.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: That has nothing to do with your son.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we wanna we just wanna make little we got two little issues here. Just gonna because we've already been we've passed the bill out, so we wanna keep it as narrow as possible. Just make sure we have dealt with or at least fought through the two little issues they got raised. Rick has just made another suggestion. Just talking as think about this.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So clarifying the language that upon a law enforcement officer appearing in a school on an information related matter before admitting the officer into a non local area at the school, the superintendent or designee shall require the officer provide ID and those warrants. That's pretty good. It's different than what you all pass. What you all pass is you're not allowed, right? And that's much more stronger language than this, but I think it's something More realistic. Yeah. Something maybe something to consider. So they require it, and then the next part is they ignore it and So come in this is also new. Subdivision 3, or reworked. In the event a law enforcement officer appeared at a school on an immigration related matter does not provide documentation required to, ID, no warrant, and proceeds to enter a nonpublic area of the school, the school shall not obstruct the officer.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Shall not obstruct, I mean, we thinking to the human shield aspects of it? I mean, if there are private citizens who want to do that

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As their choice.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I was gonna say, like, like, shall you know, the school shall not this or or we like, we don't wanna put people's thing harm's way, but

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I well, so

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I mean, I I don't want us creating a directive Some people break it. Saying Yeah. You know, teachers, you shall obstruct, but I also don't want to say something that is inadvertently saying, get out of the way of ICE so they can come into your school. I mean, I think

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: it's Yeah, well, we aren't trying to provide guidance to our school employees. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But we can say, you know, shall not risk

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Bodily not. Why don't we just remove it?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just allow, I suggest was that.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah, yeah. You can remove,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because we're moving the allow, or Right. Allow and two, I don't know if you need three.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because now you're just saying that you require these two things. It's not saying that you can't allow them, it's just you just have to require these

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: two things. But by being silent, I'm not sure that's the right perspective. I think that Proton was right that he needs provide them some guidance and initially concept was you're about identify and impede the entry but if they persist get out of the way.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And I think that's wise because that if we tell if we tell if we dictate something different and they get hurt, that puts the state of liability and create quite a

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: mess on the federal time.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: To Senator Hashim's point, if the public surrounds the school, it's a completely different scenario than school personnel.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, to be fair, it also says the school shall not obstruct the officer. I don't even know what that Like

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We we have it defined as

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was wondering.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: School employees, students. Right. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so we can't.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't think

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we can.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, trust Sorry. No. Employees, independent contractors, school resources

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: State jobs are student. Never students. If the students

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Yeah. So the students would not be included in this. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But the students are also our charge. You can't avoid the obligation, regardless of

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But think about what's happening here. At this point, the officer has gone into private areas of school.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What purpose did this serve originally?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, let's back up. Yeah. I think what we're doing first was saying, you don't let him in.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So then I wowed unless they have his wire brackets. Then we said, but don't get it. We'll piss Mike. You don't want to get in the fist fight.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But you could obstruct in other ways, like locking a door or standing in front of them and hoping they don't

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Once they're an area, you don't get into a shopping bench. Let's not make this more complicated.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We just direct Keep me trying to keep

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: keep it simple here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We could direct the model policy to, like, determine if there are legal or best practices involved. Determine best practices as to what we do. The escalated. If

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: they had a word alia despite, that's a good thing, yeah. I don't want to write this whole thing on this, we can end up back again.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, I want be really careful about it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So, Dave, know, people, people are going to try to modify it on

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: the floor, right? So, was your suggestion, Chair, that create a, so replace three with a provision that says the policy should figure out what to do if they come in anyway.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Figure out if they're a best practice. I mean, to be fair, I actually think the schools are talking about what the best practices are in those scenarios. I think they know more than

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we do. Policy will say, don't get it. Don't you Yeah. Superintendent get into a fight with ICE.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Who has an AP 47. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah. But that's 254 different solutions. That's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, no. It's the model policy.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But what I mean, right, you say the school is trying to figure it out. They're ahead of us.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yeah. They are, but

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: they every single one's gonna come up with a different I think we're great. Yeah. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Mark

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: mark the record.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we we delete three and replace it later on

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The policy and procedures.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah, on on six, on page five of the bill that came out of the committee, you have language, the paragraph.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I can share my screen

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: if y'all will have the proper bill. So

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on page five, starting on, yeah, Submission six, this is on or before 01/01/2027, AOE in consultation with the Vermont Superintendent Association of Chattendenville and review annually model administrative policies to help schools execute the policies set forth in the subsection, which is specific to the law enforcement on-site. So you can add language here that guides them in consideration of this or trust that they'll do that on their own. It's up to you all how much guidance you'll give them.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I would add Are are you suggesting that that section six covers the idea of what will the schools do if they come in anyways?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was the So six was added at the very end, and that was The purpose was this is a very touchy area, law enforcement coming on-site, and, and the superintendents have a lot of responsibility, and that's why the the DSA was very much involved and being so, yeah, but that would still have three there.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have two and three.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I mean, that that's why I think just getting it to three. Unless if I don't think either getting rid of three or if it's really not necessary saying with just, you know, in six, the model administrative procedures will also consider what happens if they come

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to any risk or elder group.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would say best practice is to limit conflict and harm or something, and we can delete three.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I think no.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. In the path in the kind of timeline of this, unfolding, I'd give them some guidance, which is in three, then in the model policy, is sometime in the future. Well something more refined, more, you know, thought

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What what we're saying is they currently be in conflict with the guidance. I mean, they didn't have a judicial warrant at the time that they were on school property. They didn't ever obtain a judicial warrant that had the name of someone who was on campus property.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So you're writing paragraph three right now. But Given your scenario.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But the shall not obstruct, I think is not

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What's the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: our intent.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What what guidance? We're talking to our teacher, whoever's your response.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, look at the other scenario we heard about today was one where someone pretended to be Yeah. Got it. Law enforcement.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And that's addressed with

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't wanna tell schools they can't do something that they believe would protect children.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. So there's a point in line there. I think we've addressed senator Hardy's question, which was a good one, on false identification or false

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, how have we, because if we don't know if they're false or not.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: The day that happened with that individual, he did not have any ID. But,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so they might not know when someone walks through the door if they are law enforcement or not, and that person's already breezing by them with an AK-forty seven.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The lock, if the doors, The doors are locked, so how's what you're

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: No different than any school guy, and we gotta get in a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then they're ob They are gonna be obstructing At first,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: you get It's Walk up, you

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gotta show me your ID.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: If you show me your ID, and at that point, if they're gonna be bad, they're gonna be bad. But if it's a law enforcement, they are gonna show you your ID and then you choose to let them in. And if you

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go But we're saying in the previous two, you do not let them in Right. If they don't have a judicial warrant. Correct.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So so can I ask me?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you don't unlock the door? Correct. So you obstruct them?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes. Right. Keep the door locked, but if they bust the door open Then

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: hit then you can lock them because ears shouldn't protect

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But obstructing them is keeping the door locked in the first place.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Obtained and laid you?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: You don't, well, first, if you don't know if like with the with the scenario of somebody pretending to be a cop, they show up and say,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'm a cop.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Let me in and you spend, you know, $100 on Amazon and you get, you know, crappy tactic appear. You can look like a cop and somebody busting in with those within that attire, you know, to a lay person or to a teacher, they may appear to be a cop and that teacher may want to stop them however they can from coming in with a rifle into the school and which is an unfortunate reality that we have to talk about with our schools and be honest. So I'm

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. Yeah. We've got two of the scenarios going simultaneous. One is a federal agent who's gonna make entry for purposes which we've all been trying to get a picture. Second is the criminal deranged. That's completely different scenario. And and that and I think I understand because you've unfortunately been in over a decade of these kinds of scenarios that the schools at least have a protocol for what to do with that event. And that's essentially keep the door locked and and call call around. But if you're

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: keeping the door locked, then you're expecting

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. Could we stop? No. Once

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: you're locked, yeah, you're instructing, but if they bust through the door, then you stop instructing. Right?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: So then after somebody busts through the door, you just let them

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You call

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: 911, but they have to show you proper ID and a warrant to make it through that door. And you're saying, well, already You interrupting

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: don't have a warrant, and they've that's that's what this is getting at is how to get through the door, Warren.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I can see well, so, by the way, so going to the to the one issue about ID in sub two d two unless a judicial warrant is presented by the officer should we say unless proper identification and a judicial warrant is presented? It's already gone. Did she just have that?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well that's in the the first draft I sent you, which kind of reworked that whole thing, if I can show you that. That's not Look, that's a different take on this. Let me stop this, share the other one. I don't think you're going in this direction.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm fine with some two. Yeah,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is This is I don't think this is what you want, Mr. Chair. This is what I presented as an option. As an option. Yeah. But I think you wanna if you wanna keep two, as it mostly is Yep. And you wanna add and present.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, in front of a judicial ward, unless proper identification and a judicial ward is presented. They don't get let in unless they have those two things, right? And then we go to

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you call it proper identification? What was your language you used? I used

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I said proper identification. Proper identification. Because identification could be, I guess, anything so legitimate that the or proper identification and an additional warrant is prevented. Okay. So then we, that takes us to the- The three. Then to three and how we deal with that. We leave two as is.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Obstruct I'm just basically saying obstruct is too broad of a word to leave in to just leave this sentence alone. I think we should take it out and figure out that that's practiced in.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Because you're you're worried you're thinking about, yeah, you make them you keep internal doors locked

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so that they

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: break in. You keep internal doors locked to make it harder.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Which is what we should do. It seems to

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you keep them away from kids. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: but at the same time, we don't what what we didn't wanna do here is get into

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. Nothing. Physical altercage. No. Frankly, I think the point is we're getting out of their way. Once a law enforcement officer, not a criminal, peers on an immigration related matter, not a criminal matter, and they make entry anyway, it's not about throwing down every roadblock. It's about getting out of the way for the safety of the school person and the kids.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But usually when someone has a weapon, Adults put themselves in between that person and children. I don't wanna tell a school official, yeah, just let them carry on. I would want them to conti I believe most school officials, their instinct would be to keep obstructing that person from accessing children.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Federal officer who's now gained entry to a school, Illegal.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You want them to do illegally. Yeah. I get that. You want me to do what?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I don't it's that's the point. That's why I'm gonna figure out. It's letting them do what they think is To no. What do

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you want the school employee

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to do? That's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not let an untrained person with a gun further into the school.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I don't think that we should direct them to, you know, form a human shield. I also don't think that we should say, you must stand aside and let this size eight go kidnap a kid without a warrant. That's that's what

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: First first thing. So goes out to the door, pushes the plaza. Alright? Says, ice, we have business here. We wanna come in. Don't worry about it. Turns somebody and say, dial 911. Yep. We have to have a protocol for that scenario. If he breaks the door, and then, you know, you try and obstruct the officers, there's possibility some kids could get her.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right? And maybe this is where the guidance comes in because the guidance for might be a combination of, right, get kids into classrooms and lock the doors. Activate your- Otherwise, don't.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Use your active shooter drill at that point. Yeah. I mean, someone with a mask on and an AK-forty seven comes up and flashes you a badge, I'd be activating my my shooter drill.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No matter no matter how much we tell them what to do, they're gonna have to use their discretion. Sure. And if if they they wanna obstruct or get involved, then they're gonna

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: get involved.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm not gonna tell them not to.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I think, I agree with Senator Williams. I think that it's, I don't, I think that we shouldn't be saying, you shall stand in front of this ICE agent, but I also don't think that we should be saying, get out of your way and I get them on

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: mean, it's at that point, it's above that individual's paper. You've got 911 dialed, you should have some authority. You're somebody who wants authority to talk

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to me. I think Senator Ron Hinsdale made it right, you go into lockdown mode.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Goes That's probably the best practice is not this way.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: That's gonna fall under their That protocol, may be

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the guidance that we So maybe in that guidance section, you had suggested this, Rick, that maybe we tack on something, even though, or they'd probably think of it on their own, but we tack on something about including best response practice if entry is illegal, entry is affected or something like that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, Or is

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: affected.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Right. I'm like, So I think that kind

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: of, does that almost circle us all the way back to the beginning in which we're saying remove three, add something to six, which is it and what we add to six is what you just described of school will develop a policy of what to do if an illegal entry is made.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Which would probably have been had.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah, it would probably be going to lock the right person down.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then add a proper identification to the number two, that they present ID and

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: sent to Hokies. Yeah. That'll deal So with that there'll be two amendments. Were those that were those small three entries that were raised? The ID, Senator Baruth's issue, and then what was the

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: other one? Senator Watson. Oh, Senator Watson.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And I think hers is covered just by the fact that says immigration. I showed her that after it's, she went, Oh yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My answer was probably too long instead of being like, No, it's fine, it's there. Coulda done that, but yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, three instances, adding ID to the, what they must show, ID and a warrant, two striking, Three, this, shall not obstruct, paragraph. And then third instance is the Submission six, adding further guidance that they shall consider best practices for illegal entry.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep. Lockdown mode, those kind of things. Okay. So legal entry is accomplished despite, yeah, all of them.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It'll be tonight when you see it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, maybe just so you could send it to Wallace. Why don't we then meet as a committee tomorrow at 12:45, 12:34, what do you want to talk for? Yeah. No. Actually, I guess noon makes more more sense. No. No.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. 11:31. Right?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So, is Florida eleven tomorrow?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 11:30? Oh.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh. Oh. Forgot about that. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. I want 11:20. How do you do that? Just tell our tell our chairs. 11:20, we're out. We meet here. Go there. Bag's here.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What time do people get into the building?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We're 07:00. Right. We're here before everybody wakes up.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I can Breakfast will We're in committee. We're in I can have my development at 08:30 tomorrow. At eight. I can get in Like today? 08:15 because that's when we can

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: get out.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How many are gonna take for today? Are you guys about to close-up for today right now?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, you're suggesting you stick around for half an hour?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'll send it out and just talk to you. It'd be a

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: straw poll. This would be a floor, this would be a straw poll anyway.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We've already seen them. Sorry. Yeah. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or could we approve it via email? Right. So we Oh, did that

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: be Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Alright.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's see how that goes. Okay. Okay. We need to be figure out how to Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Didn't mean to go out to this year. We could

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: recess or something too.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Send send it to me.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, and that would be good.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We yeah. We could do what sort of just suggested then, but let's do a walk at it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll email the entire committee. We'll all make And sure we're then you tell me what names you wanna

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Can you put yellow that changes? Yes. Let's see for us. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good discussion.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so, yeah, I can't answer your You said go to adjourn, I can't answer your question either, I don't know, about the house.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, no, I thought that legislative

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: council might have had some insights.