Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We are live, at the Senate Education Committee on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 31, the March. And today we're actually gonna begin the markups, follow-up on activity three, we have rep 7.1, and it would have been 6.1, which would have been the next version, they ended up doing a couple more tweaks. But everything new, you still have a yellow from both six and seven, right?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's from whatever That's St. James Oxford Legislative Counsel. The yellow represents changes that have not yet been reviewed. I don't honestly remember the last draft number.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, yeah, last draft we went through was 5.1. So this is right. So we can first look at changes, then go back and try to do a section by section and see if we have ready to kind of at least editably check off sections, section by section. But why don't we do the And Phil, I'll say this, don't pay attention to all the pages with all the towns in which district, because that's, that would take a long time, but otherwise, but.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So, just as a reminder, there's a key at the top. Anything highlighted in green is intended to represent a policy choice that you have not yet solidified. So, for the most part in this draft, that is just references to something that requires a boundary and membership. And then yellow are changes from the last draft that we walked through together. So, no changes to section one. Section two, there were changes highlighted in yellow, and that is because we've gone from 11 supervised reunions in the non gray area to 12.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And that? Sorry, the new one?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Bennington District was very large compared to most of the others, so broke it back to us. It's basically Yeah. That's about the same numbers as most of the others.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you'll see highlighted in yellow reference to the new supervisory union, the Bennington Runham supervisory union on page one there, and then the membership of that supervisory union, you get them on the very bottom of page two, line 22, and then the substance of the membership goes on to page three, all highlighted in yellow. This resulted in renumbering everything after, but I did not highlight that in yellow. Just know that all of your supervisor unions have been renumbered. So then we are going to jump all the way, we're just looking at changes, to page 19. And I suppose to orient you, we should jump back up to page 18, was the reporting requirement for the State Board of Education to submit a report to you all on line 11 on page 18. For adjustments to SQ boundaries for the supervisory unions located within the gray area. And also, the school district mergers within the new supervisory union boundary recommendation in the gray area. So, this is all recommendations to you all. And so, lines 10 through 12 on page 19 add some language as to what those new school district recommendations should achieve. And that is to result in a recommendation of a total of 10 school districts as practical within the boundaries of the supervisory unions listed in Subdivision 1. Which is the

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: is the gray gray area. Area. Yes. Ten and twelve, twelve, twelve.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep. 12, yeah. Yep.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: 12

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is in reference to the supervisory unions.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I got one. Okay. Yep. And that 10 is in the districts in the gray.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But school districts and supervisory unions are different.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yes. You explained that many times.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On section six, line 16, we're now in the reduction of number of school districts. This is where we're outside of the gray area in the supervisory unions, and you're asking for school district mergers to occur within those supervisory unions. And so the goal for those mergers would be on or before 07/01/2029, the state shall provide educational opportunities through approximately 50% fewer school districts. Then if you continue on page 20, Talking more specifically on our report 09/01/2026, the member school district boards of the following SCUs shall establish study committees to study the advisability of forming a new or expanded community school district, and any combination that results in a reduction in the number of individual member school districts to a total of 48 school districts within the non gray area as practical across all SUs listed in subdivisions one through 11 below, which is what appears in lines actually, and I need to change I need to update that to 12, that's been informing changes with Nate, but everything listed there.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Senator Reffernan, would you mind going 48 or less? That way we'd encourage to get even below half.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. It's the only reason I didn't do that, thought about that, And but I think that we wanna give the state board. We don't want to give at least in my thinking is. Didn't wanna give the state board too much authority to shrink down and down. I wanted it to happen voluntarily, but at least get to that 48. So if more than 48 happens voluntarily, that's great. But I wanted to put a limit on what the state board could do because we want this to be largely voluntary, but the hope is largely voluntary than the state board coming in and closing a few that have to get close to get to that. And you're worried if you

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: do 48 that you might get too much pushback on that or a minimum of 48? Because you said as practical. So if people go 48 or less, as practical, if can bring to the table why it's practical, because is that a decision they make and they push down? Or does that have to come before us before that happens?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so there's just a I would go out and if we ended up with fewer than 48, but I don't want but I'm leery about having to give it to the state board too much authority because this whole thing we've got to gather, the support we've gathered for this by having it be largely voluntary and not too

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: threatening. Yeah. Completely help us out here just for a sec. So in one order of the state, we're trying to do this organically and encouraging them, and then there's a stick at the end if they can't get to a certain number. But in the other three quarters of the state, or directing, what's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the what's the mentality? Well, I would argue that we're we're you are right. We're doing it with the SUs, but within the SUs, it's the same process. For two two years.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So the same so what what we know about, Roblin, and Addison's all stored up here. But Roblin, Why not I got my devils out. Yeah. So we need to flush this. Need to move on with concepts. Why not organic there as opposed to directed?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just Well, within it, it is what we ask. Because we have within the within the core areas, I think we have nine How many superintendents? We we had to end up with 12 plus 10.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: No. Mean, in Rutland, in the Rutland Regional, whatever. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So I think there's I think it's 97 districts within the COVID area, so that that's the half of that is 48. So raised the point of tension here but I was trying to I think with being able to bring everybody we've kind of got coming into this with us, I think if we end up giving the state of word too much authority, might lose frankly, some of us. Well, when you

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: say practical, who are they gonna answer to to say that this is practical?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, I think it would be the state board having to use some judgment about whether it's practical for them to be able to get to the 48.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Don't you want the State Board to answer the legislation?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, it'd be in the reporting, but no, we are giving the State Board the authority to emerge just like they had in '46. In fact, a lot of this language was Act 46 language, Well, not yet, Lincoln.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the general concept is borrowed from Act 46.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: what are you thinking? Well, I just, you know, to satisfy what the governor was hoping for and to satisfy even the challenges that we have for class size quotas and that, that is encouraging that, you know, if you put just 48 as a number, that's gonna be like, well, hey, we don't have to do it because and if the board will have to come along and say I guess it's just, I'd like to see it as I think we all would. We want it to happen just as you want it to organically. But I'd like to say you really need to, really need to think about this hard because there's teeth here to say, if you don't, we're gonna because even our public knows. But like I say, if you leave it up just to towns, your small towns, my small towns, they're gonna be very reluctant to We tried it, I think they said five, ten years ago combined for Jen's and Maui. And now, now they may be a lot easier. But we're still gonna have that bone contention where we're making it, we're making it. So let's not bother, let's not touch it

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: as this round of juice, which is not gonna save us any. Or stop using the word save is not gonna make it less and more efficient, because efficiency is what's gonna start saving us. So that's I agree with that. So the the premise here, you know, premise is that if they know the state board has the ability in the end, they will be much more likely to do it voluntarily, figure out who they wanna be working with rather than waiting to see who the state board works with.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So, if we put a minimum of 48, and with the encouragement to more as practical, with having to get maybe, because then you can have a school come and say, This is, they're selling us, we can show you why it's not that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's it. There's a provision here that does that, that actually specifically provides for the district to come in and say, Well, they shouldn't go ahead. The way this is set up is that this is the state board, not the legislature doing this. So And we're gonna pay for that. Yeah. So, I mean, admittedly, the number 48 is on one level of arbitrary. It was picking a number which was 50%. So, right? And not hating that,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I would just like to encourage, you know. Got it.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: As a proof of concept, when when can we start falling over to this specialist at JFO to start pricing this out to see if there is, in fact, cost savings at 48 or whatever number is. Why don't we if this is really a goal, then you've stuffed your gums for a slower time. Let's have, let's do a little sanity check, you know, on cost savings. If that's one of our goals or our premise, why don't we just pass this over the fence a little bit more to do some analysis.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I've Andrew, I mean, think there's so many moving pieces. That's it. Moment in time, yeah.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Esther Holden has joined the school office. Just a comment, the specialist, I believe the senator's referring to is from the JFO Foundation Formula contractor, is that correct?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Right. He's been on board now how long?

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: To clarify, are you speaking about the contractor hired person who went to Ag seventy three?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I believe I.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. Their report is Okay. Just to clarify, their report is due back in December 2026. So any so just to flag that that if this is something you ask the contractor to look at as a map, the report would not be due until December 2020.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: There's no one, I guess I completely misunderstood the role of this new employee. I thought they were at our beck and call to do cost analysis for different scenarios to prove concept of, or at least to prove cost stats. Yeah.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So I would need to look at the scope of work to see what you're talking about specifically, but the contractor from Act 73 was hired to report back for December, in December 2026, and not quite what you described.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: And interject, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm wondering if what Senator Weeks is trying to get at is, you know, last year we had you know, regular meetings with JFO and lots of charts, a lot of numbers looking at, you know, what are the financial impacts of if we do, you know, this foundation formula and you know, if you switch out numbers here and there and is that the type of analysis that you're looking at to get with if we're looking

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: at this map with this number of jesters? Yes. Me. What what I'm referencing back to is a year ago, we had AOE bringing cost analysis to us if we did certain things, you know, their recommendation at the time, affecting districts, affecting staff, leadership, governance, not going to put staff, they came up with a number. They said this is your net savings. Hypothetically, if adopted this picture, this is what you could experience in cost savings, give or take. So I thought that what we would be doing incrementally is analyzing potential maps or structures, but then being able to show constituents this is a net effect. With this snapshot in time, that's what, hypothetically, we can experience and call cities. If I can, this may

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: be an oversimplification of the question, but what I would hope to get is an analysis that answers the question of if we switch to 48 school districts and 12 SKUs, what will those schools be receiving and what will people be paying on their taxes, which I think are the two, I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but I think those are the two underlying questions that I'd like to have in front of me if we're looking at this map with the foundation formula that we're contemplating as well.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay, so I think I might, maybe I'm hearing two different questions. Why don't we have that maybe pull up the Act 73 language and see if that is what Senator Weeks is talking about, and then Senator Hashim, are you thinking about some of the presentations that JFO did last spring? Yes. Okay. So that is something that I think we, at JFO, can look at doing separately from the contractor that I believe Senator Weeks is referring to. Ben, do you

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I think he's just asking, we're going complete with what Senator Bevanberg wants. Just

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: like

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: when I did my one Univision cost savings on that, that's what we're saying, the map as it is, under Act 73, what will that look like? Cost savings or not?

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure, so yeah. The Joint Fiscal Office can certainly support you with modeling based on new district configurations, so our office can do that. The part where I think Senator Bongartz was talking about when he said things are up in the air, if you have lines that are being drawn for voluntary mergers, we at the Joint Fiscal Office can't determine who will merge with who, so within the boundaries laid out, we can say how many students there are in those large boundaries, but we can't predict who will voluntarily merge with who. I think I want to

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: just time shot right now before they merge gets their savings.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. I think the problem would again be we don't know who would merge with who, that SU would be maybe the sticking But

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you're gonna know the amount of students in the foundation form, So it doesn't really matter. Yeah, number, the target number of the Yeah, it doesn't matter, yeah, it doesn't matter

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: which districts combined. On one level, let me just play this out. We the foundation formula is for people. Mhmm. So on one level, that it's the same amount of money, but almost no matter what the configuration as it relates to the students. The premise here is that the foundation only that works better with larger districts. And it would move small districts. Little change in population. You can have a major effect if they can get districts to merge. Voluntarily. They're going be better off the the premises that almost no matter what, they're better off at the foundation of one of the and the balancing act here and the problem is it's very it's an almost impossible to measure those impacts because we don't know how they're gonna merge. So we're we're that's the tension here, guess. If we were to just mandate it, we could model it very specifically. It's very hard to model it. It so my the premise that I'm operating under here is simply reduce the number of SUs from a total of 52 down to a total of, 22. That saves that it's hard to I don't know if you should even say that. But then reduced number of districts. It makes the whole thing more efficient, and we know that the finished product works better if we can make the system more efficient. But it's gonna be hard to model it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And I know that's what we're gonna get from other senators, data, data, data, and it's game Well, to be

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: there's two parts of the problem. One is the gray blob. We treat the gray blob as x number of students, you know, times, or divided by, the target number of districts as an outcome. But the other ones, they're already outlined. And we could, I believe, could do a cost analysis between those as used as they are now and as they would be in the future. So again, may not be the perfect product but it gets us an understanding of work if we're on the right track. You know, it's a net cost benefit. If can were insignificant, something as simple as that analysis would be helpful. Maybe

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: it's a rhetorical question, but if we're talking about an amount of savings coming from cutting the number of superintendents in half. And so I guess my question is, that savings offset the other increasing costs of things like health insurance, fuel, transportation, private contracting services, are those savings actually going to save money for people? That's the question that I have. But I mean, it's also on top of the other question of, you know, the foundation formula is supposed to increase, or if efficiency is increased, then the foundation formula will save money, but that's a very nebulous concept that I mean, there has to be some way of getting an idea if that will save money while providing at least the same education to kids. And yeah, so I feel like I need to have some information about that before making a decision.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So on one hand, we know that in and of itself, the foundation will slow the rate of increase because it's a fixed number with a fixed multiplier. So we know that. Now that the the savings are there, but are having to do the configuration, slowing of the rate of increase, starting on how we do the configuration. And the question is that does the configuration of fewer districts, they provide more opportunity for students and less opportunity for a couple of kids living in the system in moving to any districts getting harder. So I don't know how to model that as well. Don't know if anybody wants to know what part of that might be able to do. I guess we could certainly model the reduction in the number of superintendents.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So I think before I get any more over my skis, should phone a friend with the lawyer here and just ask them, does this language change school districts as drafted right now?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's nothing in this bill that would give JFO new school districts to follow right now. So, if you were to ask JFO to take the boundaries that are in place in this bill and model them based on the new base amount, they would just be modeling today's school districts.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, we have 12 districts out there, so far, plus the grade one.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those are all current law districts.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Current law districts, but there's a reduction in the number of superintendents.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, but my understanding is the modeling that JAMPO does is at the school district level, not at the supervisory union level, because that's where our tax rates are. Right, and this bill, while it creates new supervisory unions, it doesn't create new school district boundaries.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, let me back way up. I'm gonna get back up to the top of the chairlift, let alone over my skis. How can we model this to prove that we've got some cost efficiencies percolating here or this is not worth our effort. And let me give you a reference. We talked about a bill on the floor today without a JFO report. Everybody just kind of washed their hands and well, we're not really sure. We think this is the right approach. Well, here we are again, we've got a whole another scenario, we need some analysis. And I thought we hired a person to help us with that, but we haven't called on that person to do analysis, not knowing that in fact they were hired for a completely different purpose, how can we see if there's any cost efficiencies here? Because I remember a year ago, AOE was in here and they said, here's the net savings, and oh, by the way, this would help with teacher salaries, and they had a whole list of benefits. How do we even know we're that, we're going down the right path as they were outlining a year ago?

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure, so I can't speak to the agency and how they came up with the numbers that they did and the modeling that they were referencing when they talked about the

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: A year later, we can't even take their spreadsheets and say, we validated this. We could validate, in fact, that their model was correct or incorrect, or all for wrong or whatever. Now we've got a house ed map, we've got a senate ed map, we've got a we've got a task force map of BOCES. I mean, we've got a lot of different maps moving. We've got Heffernan map. A lot of this stuff could be, like, analyzed yesterday. So looking for help. Cost drivers are one of our goals, how do we prove it?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I I think you have to that the the money for SEUs comes up through the districts. And the money saved in this is the factor through the foundation and a big starting point and a big small part. He can't stop. But superintendent stop was, but that was a high point, a year ago. But the fixed multiplier will be there kind of no matter what. Then it's a matter of how well that money can get utilized within the districts. I'm just operating under, we've tried mandating maps, we've been talking about that, and there's no way that's going to happen. People are not, people don't want that. So what I'm trying to do is move in the direction of fewer districts and fewer SUs and fewer districts by definition have to be more efficient and they know that the foundation formula works better with the larger districts. So we're trying to go through a process where we, I think we may end up with more mergers beyond what we're trying to get to as people look at the foundation formula and what it's actually gonna do on their landscape. However, Chair, they are

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: gonna say we wanna see data. Center, we Yeah, wanna see I wanna see data. It

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Or takes anybody's a name on anything that's- That's gotta figure,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: yeah, I have to figure something so that we can get some analysis on it, right?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: If I'm not trying, I don't wanna, much, we can, I'm I'm just trying to, we're having a discussion. The foundational formula is where the savings are. We know we can quantify that, we know that. That's the answer to the question. And then the question is, how does the foundation formula best fit onto the landscape? And I don't think there's any question that fits onto the landscape better with fewer disease. Okay, well

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: why couldn't they follow Senator Heffernan's house?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: They did. They came out with the 6% savings as running at under the current system right now, which was $4.60. Sorry.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: The question, so, okay, so let's say we, Foundation Formula saves money, And we go through all of this. I do still want to know if that will offset the rising costs of, again, health insurance, fuel, transportation, private services, and all the other things that contribute to the increasing tax burden on everybody to provide education in Vermont. That's one thing that I would like to have at least a general idea.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Jamie, do want to add this? Just one more. That's a super

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: I do think, and you know what the Jamie Canarney. Yeah. Sorry. Jamie Canarney, superintendent of schools, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union. I agree the modeling's difficult in regards to not knowing what the end districts are gonna be, and the foundation formula, right, works in regards to understanding based on what those current constructs of the districts are across the state versus what the new construct will be. So it's hard to anticipate through the foundation formula what the savings would be because you don't have new district maps. You have new SU boundaries.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this is, yeah, this is the tension. This is an apparent tension here because we're trying not to mandate. We're trying to let it happen organically. And when it's happening organically, it's very we do know the foundation formula, the cost of the system is gonna be just the number of students. That's that's it.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, mean, was gonna add, it's voluntary for two years and then it's mandatory, but we just don't know what the mandatory map would look like, and without having that map, we won't be able to get an idea of what the analysis analyses are from all our different perspectives as to what may or may not be saved. I guess that's just a comment that yes, it's an issue, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it would be nice for us to be able to figure out what would the cost savings be, if anything. But again, yeah, don't know how to approach

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: The one thing you could do is make some assumptions, which you already have, right, in regards to your goal around reductions, R and your goal around reductions within those SUs. So you could provide that data the JFO, to work off of in regards to what the assumed reductions would be in

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: regards to the

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: districts. Yes. You're go ahead. You're here.

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont]: Ben Kinsdale, campaign for Vermont. We did model SU consolidation, and we modeled going from '52 to 15, which is not all that far off from the map you're considering. We found $150,000,000 in savings from that, that effort.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Good folks to the ground. Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I've been good, but, you know, we don't have to do what you wanna do. We we don't have all the equality. We don't have all the components to to come up with the the equation. It's you gotta you gotta look at once your boundaries are formed and we put it put the school districts together, you got got the logistics under there that goes along with what know, sort of a machine to say. You know, you I think you guys the savings of all day is gonna be from, you know, school buses and, you know, real property and contracts. That's the BOCES part. We don't know that because we haven't put these in the suite. Like like in any business arrangement, you make assumptions, then you model. Why are we making assumptions at modeling? Yep. I agree with you, and so you're saying the same thing. So take that into consideration, the logistics part of the equation we haven't been talking about. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: how did you come up with it? What led to the savings?

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont]: We looked at states who had larger shared service providers than what our Vermont SUs provide currently, and modeled the savings projections based on categorical spending at the SU level based on savings other states have found. So that's how we got

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to the 150

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont]: number. There's another 2 and 30,000,000 sitting at the district level in shared services that you move it up to an SU or a CISA or whatever. Another two thirty million dollars sitting there at that level and potentially shared services, but just the SU consolidation component, we could bottle down. Did

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: you present Was that what you had presented a while back in your presentation?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Because you just went off in 15 counties that are bed fully, right?

[Ben Kinsley, Campaign for Vermont]: We went off of the CTE agents. That's how we got down to 15.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. You're not gonna save a lot of money by just eliminating superintendents. I mean, listen to people.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's just it's a whole different side. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It's a whole different side. So we gotta have we have to have the maps, at least assumptions of where you're gonna be so we can finish the equation. Make make assumptions. K. Then we'll recruit them and prove they need to be lumped up, we modify, and we remodel. Gotta, like, constantly model until we get it right. Can't model at the end and say, oh.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we're just trying get my arms around how we model. I get the assumptions even the assumptions are hard as you could you could be largely coaching smaller districts Maybe one thing to do might be as we're to assume purchase of our smallest districts Oh, until we get to 48. So,

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Chair, if you would like the JFO, if you'd like me to work on some modeling for you, happy to do that. I think you and I would, and whoever would need to sit down and talk about those concrete, like, when you say, for example, round up the smallest groups into the largest, what does that entail? And then that's an assumption we can work with. Happy to work with you on that. Like we can certainly do that. We would just need some concrete assumptions Yes, okay. And that might be a conversation better offline. And I'll take a That's been good though.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is pulled apart a little bit, so this is good. Okay. Yeah. Can I add a little more

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a little more thought that I think it's imperative, and I I think my colleague, Senator Hashim, would agree that it's imperative that JFO would be the one involved to validate the information coming forward here, validate the information that came out of the single district, Validate the CTE map? Validate the common map. Validate the Bongartz map. Gotta show it somewhere. Gotta start comparing apples to oranges to apples. Somehow we gotta find some synergy, and it can't be four weeks from now, when it's in the ninth hour. Don't blame me. No, no, no, I'm just saying. My thought, naive politician. I thought JFO would be validating everything we do around it. That's very naive. I understand. I'm just saying we I implore that we draw JFO into this conversation and start using them to hammer this out cost perspective.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And the AOE.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And AOE. Yeah. Agreed. They should be I apologize. Everyone's getting excited about it, but have we validated AOE's proposal from a

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: year ago? One moment, it's a dead letter. Because

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: they still could be right. That's my point. All those options should be lined up, and you don't dismiss any of them, including the null solution, which is don't change anything. All those options should be lined up and compared to each other. Pros and cons and costs and dot dot dot. For us, it's a match. Otherwise, we're gonna be four weeks from here completely flameless.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I think AI can go a little fast.

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: If I could just say one thing. My coworker and I, Julie Richter, we did go into the House Committee on Education, and we did have a printout there which talked about the House Eds map, because they did ask us for district by district, so there is a printout on the House Ed's website if you would like to look at that and get an idea. We have done some analysis, because we were asked specifically to do that and given a few parameters, so like I said, happy to work with the committee and with Chair Bongartz, whoever, to test out a few different assumptions and configurations. So, yeah, absolutely, we have done some of that work, and we're happy to do more as requested.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Great. Yeah, good idea. What put together as question. Let's continue.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're on section seven, page 20, line 17. No changes to the section. The next changes are, you jump to section 10, which is page 23. Kyle State Action. Line 17. In order to modernize Vermont School District governance structures and meet the goals set forth in section one of this act, while reducing the number of school districts located within the SUs listed in section six B to a total of 48 school districts as practical. So that same goal there. The secretary shall. And then on page 24, it's that same language, getting down to a total of 48 school districts as practical. And then on page 24, line 19, subdivision three, any mergers proposed by the agency shall be based on the following considerations. This is largely the same as in the last draft you looked at, but the wording is a little different. So any mergers proposed by the agency based on the following consideration, school districts with small average daily membership counts shall be a priority for mergers. I would just note that small is a very vague and ambiguous term.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I did respond to you.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope, we talked about changing it from student counts to average daily membership, but not the term small.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm sorry, okay.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I would encourage you, because we are, this part of that delegation process where you're delegating your authority, would encourage you to be more specific with what small means. But that's one consideration. B had no language change. Subdivision C, I'm on page 25, will the merged school districts have adequate infrastructure? Subdivision D, will the merger lead to improved opportunity? And subdivision d, will the merger lead to potential gain? The concepts were the same, just the wording was different.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But this no. It looks this is the promise.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Alright, that's it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then, I don't believe there were any other changes. No other changes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. Seth, can I ask you a question on what we're in in section, what we just did, I think, on page 25, section C, D, E? Why didn't, why should there be a financial aspect of it too?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think it's implied. Maybe it needs to be more specific. It was an effective civic level, actually.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That should make schools look at their, and their bottom line, if you will, and go, We're gonna be up, we're gonna be up, be looked at because at bottom line, you can't eat it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I don't know if I'm terming it. No. You are. You're asking you're asking should there be another should there be an f that says it'll result in savings done?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Will the merge lead to saving financial aid, when they're looking at it, financial should be one of the things they look at?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I wouldn't be worried about that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, we'll look at financials. Will the district district nurture the zone 10 financial efficiency, greater financial Now that

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: is the school financially sound, which will lead to a predict?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, so we're looking, this section is if, this is if the state board, assuming, you know, that don't get enough through voluntary work terms.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And I think that should

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: be one big Yeah, so these research. Are This is what the board, this is what the agency proposed, these are the criteria that the agency will look at when they're recommending to the board the closing the gap to 48. And so it's not a school, it's two districts so will it just something like will the district work or result in? Not cost savings. Not cost savings. Yeah. But that's just a consideration, I think, with JFO validation. That's it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: For the district, or just,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: yeah, just like that? The merger. So, will the merger resolve him? Will the merger be to the debt policy? Simple as that. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So that would be half. We're gonna make it more ambiguous. What is the net cost delta between current and future? That's what we're really trying to do. And the answer could be no and if they if they tell themselves no, they prove to themselves no or then that's part of the you know that's like they can reject mergers as well as approved mergers. No, we're

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: not letting them reject mergers in this because we're saying if they can, they, if it wants to merge, they can merge.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I'm just, okay. Yeah. I'll retract that. I'm just saying that

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: And I'm wondering, is there a way in which State Board of Education draws up its maps for the force mergers, but prior to them being implemented, it gets an analysis followed by our approval to the legislation.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's a major shift if we do that, which is maybe okay. So we're saying, so the agency makes the recommendations to the board. Are the criteria the agency uses, and then by definition, I think the board would review the way that they have lived and the Yeah,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: so the agency's proposed forced mergers gets a fiscal analysis and maybe it'll be a discussion as to whether or not he would agree that the legislature should approve whether or not that new map, after looking at the analysis, will go forward. But I think that's safe, and maybe not safe, but I think that's

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: a good approach to my thinking. I believe if we agree on the criteria, And it makes sense, I don't know why it would have to come back because we've given them, just because you may get a town or get the representative senator, I know it makes sense and it shows it makes sense, but we don't want it, so we want you to vote against them. That's something that I could see happening. Not necessarily it would, but it's like, no, we set the criteria. The Senate agreed, the House agreed, this criteria will work, let the state board do its job.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, think the fiscal analysis aspect of it is, think, one of the most important pieces, because I don't think that we have this proposed math that AOE makes with the force mergers. And then there's a fiscal analysis that says you're still gonna be paying a lot for your taxes, and you're gonna have, like, convert districts. Good luck figuring it out, Act 46, Part two. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to have a say as to whether or not we're going to force those murders and disrupt a whole lot of different school districts.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I agree with but it's just gonna add more time to the process.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Also could argue that more on children's kids is just as important.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I would say that's number one. I think cost is down with packing work. If we, AOE, state work education, can't prove that the opportunity is dramatically increased or sufficiently increased to make this move, that's a nostroker. Regardless of cost. Well, I'm

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: not saying that we should take that into consideration. I agree with you. I also think, though, it's, I mean, the main impetus for all of this was increased property taxes. Yes, of course, we still have to make sure that we're prioritizing the students, but also the financial analysis of it is, I think, easier to do than say, alright, now we know teachers are going to be teaching better or we know students' mental health is improving. Those are much harder things to analyze and I I don't know who we would use to analyze the Titus AOE, but, you know, I'm speaking to the financial piece of it, not trying to suggest that student achievement and efficiency is not part of it. So I just wanna make sure that's clear.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So I'm just saying it's not working.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Not working. So our superintendents brought up a very good indoor meeting yesterday that well, first the school board,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: they're just like, well, we pay attention to the students' needs over

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the student's cost? And I'm like, that's great, but if it's like in your household, you only have $5,000 to spend on education and your child really needs $12,000 worth of education, you're gonna have to make that $5,000 worth of education. This is what led us to where we are because our, if you put the cost of, we don't think about the costing, it's just the child's need, which is very important, cannot say it's not. But if you only have a limited supply of money, which Vermont now does, there will become some restrictions that we've got to pay attention to. Then, they were, well, we in Addison County and property up in Franklin, they have to deal with losing teachers to pay because Chittenden County can pay better than the outlying counties. The Foundation Formula may help that out, but that's gonna become an issue there as well because what they're saying is Chittenden is gonna go, well, we're spending more on our payroll and getting less for being able to use for operations where a town out our way may say, well, my payroll was not as hired, so I have to move it more. So an inequity starts there as well. That's why we need a standardized basis. And we've already addressed that, nearly said not in the North, it's all. And we'll always get healthcare, you know, fuel, all that layered on. Our job is to make, just one second, it us matter, now is it the best matter? One's the best map. But this is a map we, you know, let's work with it. But we do need data. However we, and they'll still pick that apart, doesn't matter what we do. But at least we've got something we can come forward to say for right now. Here's the answer from you saying, why is this? And I can say, because this answer. Not, we haven't got any data, we can't tell you. No. But we, when it comes to children, their education's most important, but we do have a limited resource on how, our health, that we have to educate them.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So should we go back and look at go through this section by section? So k. So I hear I think I have I think I have what I think I'm gonna do is talk with JFR about reduced districts. I mean, SUs. If we can figure out how to mix up a couple of assumptions there and then assume that we're working the smallest the smallest districts merge into larger districts. That'll at least be a starting a way that we can we can figure out mathematically which ones they would be. Hopefully, and then just do some modeling based on that. Get a sense of sales. Getting down to the point.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I would agree with that. It also suggests that we can validate Senator Heffernan's policy. We validate

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: For the other for the Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. We my recommendation is don't it's not tunnel vision. It's just one concept only. Just to have a we need to have the analysis on the other options. Not saying one's more right than another, but at least to say, okay, see the merit area, your numbers are close, and see the merit area, your numbers are, you know, best, see your, no, it's all,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But it also is just like, the chair, what will make it through this building? We want the best of our ideas. Students first, but it does have to make it through this building, which is

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a gauntlet of

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But it's not gonna make it through any building, this building, unless we have data to show I mean, we're off.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think we're on that. We're okay. Agree with that. Okay. Let's take a minute. We got back there for an hour. Start on page one. See which section I'm gonna send you check off here.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going to take my direction from you all for Markup.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, well, maybe just, I don't know if we go ahead, it just makes sense, we want to read this out loud or read, okay, so section one, by enacting this legislation, general assembly tends to modernize law school district governance structure in a manner that one through six, improves governance efficiency, enables higher quality education delivery, moderates the growth rate of education spending, we know a foundation for that does that, preserves local voice who work demonstrably supports quality and cost effectiveness. Did these come from where did these come from? Did they come from Route 46? Nope. It's sensitive and responsive to the person needs to the state I and

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe I took them right the I may not have it printed out. Your original policy proposal, but let me just verify that.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Just I it's kind of mediocre thing, but I believe enabling higher quality education than the greatest natural one. Yeah. That's totally fine.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Before actuals I look at it, It's a kind of a high bar to have a vocal voice. I wanna say it that way. But monster voice of words quality. I mean, obviously, we hope it does. But Can I put it

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: in the formal question? How does, number one, governance efficiency rub against local voice? I mean, that's from what I've heard, that's kind of

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the two polar ends of a the same topic. And I I think we're trying to we're trying to take both into account. How about preserves voices where this temperature gets more quality? Of course, every local level, the all the voices we hear will argue that's what they're doing. Yep. That's Takes a word. Save the search the

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So something should I simply wanna prefer local voice. Yeah. I think that's there's, like, three different concepts in number in paragraph number four. Local voice is one. Quality is another, which I think we've already addressed in delivering and enabling higher quality education delivery and cost effectiveness. It was all already covered in moderating the growth of education spending.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's just safe. It's local voice. That's it.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Chair, I did just confirm I took these from your Vermont School District Governance Modernization document.

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we're going to move two to one.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Got it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And we're going to just make it a preserves local voice.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Got it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's been much of the testimony we've taken this whole session. Okay. So this one, we don't wanna spend time doing this because it'll take us for a few short sessions. We'll just make sure we'll definitely make sure we get these right, wind up exactly what we have before, that we have to do that. So, if think of the sections, good work.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Which is your, for lack of a better way to, well, it's how you it's how a school district could petition you all to change

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: supervising families. This is important. So, Terry, we're we're at the bottom of page 10. Okay. Now to go on page 11.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So how do you want to do it?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't you just walk us through it? As if this were our first time.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section four starts on page 10, line 19. It's an amendment to section two sixty one in title 16, which is a piece of current law, and we're going to keep the statutory section heading the same, organization and adjustment of supervisor unions, because that's exactly the process you're trying to lay out. You're just changing what's in current law. So striking current law and starting on page 11, line six, the way This is the process where a school district could ask, could eventually make its way to the General Assembly to request a boundary change. So, the board of a member school district may propose to the General Assembly to adopt, repeal, or amend boundaries of the supervisory union it belongs to in accordance with the following procedure.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, everybody got what we're doing here? We have a district on the edge of the SU that says four and the wrong SU. We want to be over here.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Kind of testing once you carefully.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So now the map is in effect, so it requires legislative action to change the boundary, and this is the process for making that happen that Beth started to describe here.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, page 11, line 10, a proposal to adopt, repeal, or amend a supervisory union boundary may be made by a member school district board or by a petition of 5% of the total voters of a member school district. So two triggers, the board itself or 5% of the school district's voters, which remember, if you're in a union school district, it's not town boundaries, it's the school district boundary. And then an official copy of the Supervisory Union Boundary Adjustment Proposal shall be filed as a public record with the clerk of the member school district pursuing the boundary adjustment at least ten days before the first public hearing regarding the boundary adjustment proposal. So,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: page 11, line 10, paragraph one. So, one school board member can initiate this process. Is that is that the the be sent in? No, it's a Midler School District. Oh, district. Oh, okay. Not a member. Yeah. Okay, not a member of it. Thank you.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're on line 16. The school district clerk shall certify the date on which the clerk received the official copy and the date copies shall be made available to the members of the public upon request. The member school district board shall hold at least two public hearings prior to the vote on the boundary proposal adjustment. The first public hearing shall be held in accordance with subdivision A2 of this section, and at least thirty days before the vote.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Can I interrupt again? I'm gonna try to not go too deep into this four asked questions. So, going back up, same page, page 11 paragraph, line seven. So you just outlined we we outlined it earlier in the review of this that AWE and the State Board of Education are involved in the enforcement, not the general assembly, but those questions from Senator Kashim. It's kind of a yes. Here, the school boards are going can go directly to the general assembly bypass Mayo, Media, and State Board of Education. Is that really the process that you want? Or do we want some succinct?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ben? So I think reader assistance headings are really helpful in this graph. And so we are in the supervisory union chunk of the bill. And so this is the process for a school board, regardless of whether they became a school board through a first merger or they voluntarily created themselves, to petition you all, the general assembly, to change their supervisory union membership. And you have to do that because you've set the supervisory union boundaries in statute. So only you can change

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the statute.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Granted, but could we have hypothetical? Just trying to make sure we think this through that that they petitioned essentially to the AOE and state board of education to advise us or something to that effect. Mean, in one case, they're they're centered to the problem. The other case, they're peripheral to the problem. Wanna Just make sure we're thinking that through that the same reviews are being held by the same people to lead to outcome. I'm happy to say leave it circle and come back to it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But No. And there's a we had there's a there's practical issues involved and why it just ended up the way it did. District fortress within the SUs has always been the purview of the state boarded in. Right? We've never done that legislatively.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you do have incorporated school districts, which were granted through a charter of the General Assembly, and you had a lot more of them at one point in time than you do now. We only have two right now. Union School District formation, current law does require the State Board of Education to approve a merger for Union School District formation.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And I think if we had if we had districts having to come to legislature for voters, would be like.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Not at a scene. Not at a scene.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're in the SU section. Yeah. We're in SU. So it's but by necessity, it's the wet suturing because we have set the boundaries and only the wet suturing to change it. So when it comes to adjusting an SCU boundary, it must be the legislature. Right. Okay. Got that. But but can't or is it appropriate for AOE and state board of education to make to analyze the proposal and to put the fingerprints. To add that into the picture. Let's Review process. Yeah, let's put pin it down for a second. Let's finish this section because it will remain relevant as we go through.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we're at the bottom of page 11. So there's gonna be two hearings on this request. The first is thirty days before a vote. And if the Shall be at least thirty days for the vote. And so going on to page 12, if the boundary adjustment proposals made by a member school district board, the board may revise the proposal as a result of suggestions and recommendations made at a public hearing, but in no event shall such revisions be made less than twenty days before the date of the meeting to vote on the boundary of district court's ruling. If the revisions are made, school board shall post a notice of those revisions the same places as the warning for the meeting not less than twenty days before the date of the meeting and shall attach such revisions to the official copy of their requests kept on file for public inspection and the office of the clerk of the member school district. If the boundary adjustment proposals made by petition, the second public hearing shall be held not later than ten days after the first public hearing. The school board shall not have the authority to revise the boundary adjustment proposal made by petition. After the warning and hearing requirements of this section are satisfied, the boundary adjustment proposal shall be submitted to the voters of the member school district proposing the boundary adjustment at the next annual meeting, primary election, or general election in the forum in which it was filed, except that the school board may make technical corrections.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So, yes. Pretty vague. I mean, you could they could wait a year if you wanna wait for the next general election. You mean the timing is right. We almost need a hypothetical calendar. Timeline. The timeline.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will just note that I took this process generally from the charter change process. And so the charter change process does not necessarily have a more specific timeline in it. You all are entitled to make whatever policy choices you It want

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: does say shall. It shall be submitted at the next annual meeting Premier Election or General Election. So actually it could only go on for a few months at most. Okay so now going back to several weeks If we wanted to get input from the state board, would it make sense for it to be between the five A and B? It would like a line 15, a section in there or would it make sense to have it after the it had before it would the voters would have that input from the stakeholder. What would the state board sell? You're asking the agency of the board by the way.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: For input. Well, I'm just reflecting on the other on the organic or then then forced mergers, whatever that process is, thought that it would at least be appropriate to have a conversation here. Should we essentially use the same process in in the in the and, again, an organic change to S U's. That's what this is, is an organic change. Yeah. From the ground up, and the only thing

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: is it must come to the legislature. So I'm glad to meet the if it must come to the legislature, it would meet the state that were formally involved or that committee would have this and it would seem to me. But I don't have the strong government or any other, if we want to have them make their recommendations. Because all of this comes to the legislature in a way as form of recommendation. The votes for the districts, the boards, legislature has all that information in front of it as it decides what to do. And if we wanted to work into that, a recommendation for the state board or the state of Chicago board, that's okay. I I

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: think we can come back to it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I just want Okay. Okay. I appreciate it. Good.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're on page 13, I believe. Step divisions six b I, each notice shall step by supervisor union boundaries to be adjusted, repealed, amended, sending out those boundaries in the amended form of deleted matters struck through as a matter underlined. And if the school board determines that the boundary adjustment proposal is too long or unveiledly to set out an amended form, then it shall include a concise summary of the boundary adjustment proposal. She'll state that an official copy of the boundary adjustment proposal is on file for the public inspection in the office of the clerk of the school district and that copies thereof shall be made available to the members of the public upon request.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this is really this is about the warning, right? Yep. And whether and if it's two if it's a two page warning, that would premise is

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The language is too long or unwieldy.

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

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Your guess is as good as mine on what unwieldy is going to to each individual.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is language I took directly from the charter change process. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this is language we use all the time.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't say we use it all the time.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. But for charter changes.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is a concept I borrowed from the charter change statute. Yeah. That makes sense. So, 13, voting on boundary adjustment proposals shall be by Australian ballot on lines ten and eleven. The ballot shall show each boundary adjustment to be adopted, repealed, or amended in the amended form with deleted matters dropped through and the new matter underlined. Shall permit the voter to vote on each separate proposal contained within the boundary adjustment request. If the school board determines that the boundary adjustment proposal is too long or unwieldy, it's the same concept, it can be shown in an amended form. An official copy of the boundary adjustment proposal shall be posted conspicuously in each ballot booth for inspection by the voters during the validate. So there's the vote. The clerk so on page 14, plus section b, the clerk of the member school district shall announce and post the results of the vote immediately after the vote counted. Subdivision two, on line 13, the clerk of the school district within ten days after the day of the meeting shall certify to the secretary of state each separate boundary adjustment contained within the boundary adjustment proposal, showing the facts as to its origin and the procedure followed, which shall include, and this is what needs to be included in the certification to the Secretary of State's office. If the boundary adjustment proposal is made by the school board, the minutes reported by the school board that detail the origin intent of each separate boundary adjustment proposal. And if the boundary adjustment proposal was made by a voter petition, the body of the petition and evidence of their required number of signatures. A copy of the official certified copy of the boundary adjustment proposal filed with the clerk of the school district, copies of the warnings and published notices for each public hearing held, minutes recorded by the school board that detail each of the public hearings held, copies of warnings and published notices for the meeting to vote on the boundary adjustment proposal, a copy of the ballot and the results of the voter votes on the boundary adjustment proposal, and the results of the advisory supervisory union board votes made pursuant to subsection C of this section, which we have not walked through yet.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Let's see.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Secretary of Yeah. Secretary of State is referenced on page 14. So I'll go through the second part of Stateline.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So you said said I think that this is this is mirroring mirroring language majority exists, but the the reason to include this in the bill is, you know, it's already in language to modify and assumes membership to add or to delete? Oh. Is that really is it really necessary to go through this whole process?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I apologize if I misspoke. This is language some of this is language that I borrowed from the charter change process for municipalities, But as far as supervisory union boundary adjustment in current law, that's all up to the state board. So, this doesn't exist in current law related to supervisory unions. And this I keep saying I borrowed concepts from because at the direction of your chair, I did make changes, so this isn't exactly the charter change process. It's borrowed concepts and then some direction from Senator Bongartz. Okay, so we're on page 15, line 20. If the voters do not approve the boundary adjustment proposal, no further action shall be taken unless and until a new boundary adjustment proposal is initiated pursuant to the section. So if the voters say no, the process is done, and it would have to start all over again.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And who proposes that boundary change?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It could either be the school board or a petition of the voters, 5%. Of a school district, within a supervisor. So page 16 line, or subsection C, line four. If the voters of the member school district vote to approve the boundary adjustment proposal, the boards of the supervisory unions affected by the boundary adjustment, instead of request, that should be proposal, Shall hold an advisory vote to approve the boundary adjustment proposal within forty five days after the results of the school district vote. The clerk of the school district requesting the boundary adjustment shall submit the results of the advisory supervisory union board votes to the Secretary of State along with that list of all the other information we just walked through. Subsection D on page 16. If the voters of the member school district vote to approve the boundary adjustment proposal, after confirming that the clerk of the member school district has certified each of those documents in that long list for the Secretary of State, then the Secretary of State shall file the certificate and deliver copies of it to it to the Agency of Education, State Board of Education, the Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate, and the chairs of the committees concerned with supervisory and of both houses of the general assembly. The boundary adjustment proposal shall become effective upon affirmative enactment of the proposal, either as proposed or amended by the general assembly.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So very similar to a general change. Does the secretary say, what are they gonna say about this? They have no say other than to be an assembled information and get it to them legislature as directed.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Because I think it was the first time talked about this thing, I haven't it today. So I think I had to go to school. Rewards okay

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so you want to move on to section five

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: so are we does that

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: all make sense people so the question about AOE and state board of education okay I don't want to because here we are purposely keeping them in at least in the awareness loop, but not in they're not validating the recommendation in any way.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Could whoever the one with that So in some ways, what this is all about is getting information to the legislature. Legislature puts it in all of this and and make a decision about the committee makes a decision about the recommendation done to the full legislature, like a charter change. So, at what point would we want to, we could add here, page 17 and after the the general assembly line four, we could add a little sub that's talked about the agency of education review, and I

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: don't

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: know what to make a recommendation. Then to the, I guess, the jurisdiction, public health secretary of state and chair of the and recommend either positively or negatively the legislature should do this.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's the AOE and I don't think we want to have

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a lot of freedom. I mean, they're just not too many promises. We're doing, it's gonna happen, I suspect it will happen rarely, but it's an opportunity.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's getting more information about it, so the more information you get, the better your decision should be.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're the more convoluted people. We could ask, if you want to, don't, it's one thing, we want to stick something in here that provides for both this agency and the board to to review and make a recommendation.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So my recommendation is, again, just put a pin in it. Okay. And let them let them in both of this type of merger or reconfiguration and the force merger. Let them come back and comment on whether they should be involved with the if they feel that it's purely a general assembly

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Let's okay. So we we have a semi check on for that issue still too. So yes, section five.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, section five, we're on page 17, line eight, transition to new supervisory unions report. Transition board formation. And this is largely current law, but in order to keep everything in one place, I've just repeated it here. So within thirty days following the passage of this act, the secretary of education shall separately call a meeting of the school directors of the member school districts within HSU. The number of directors shall be determined and directors shall be elected according to 16 BSA two sixty six. Within thirty days thereafter, the secretary shall call a meeting and the board shall elect a chair and other necessary officers to serve as a transition board till the first regular annual election of officers. So that's all current law other than the reference to this act.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So the term school directors seems a little unique. What's that reference to? Is it superintendents, principals, school board members?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's supervisor union board members, and I hear you. I just borrowed it from current law, which has not been updated in quite some time. So we can, instead of using, of quoting directly from current law, we can say, meeting of Oh, I'm sorry. You're talking about line 11?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes, line 10.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Call a meeting of the school boards of the member school districts. So we can say that. But that is what current law does for supervisory union formation for new supervisory unions. Would you like me to make that change?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You work instead? Yeah, that's fine.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then do you want the same change, the

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: number of

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: directors? Say the number of Supervisory Board members?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sure. Yes. Then I guess it's 100%

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: later. We can't find it. So so struggling with this one a little bit because so this is about the transition to the USU. Yeah. So for example, Rutland. Yeah. Okay. To have them decide how many or is it? You want me about 12 of the number of directors. I thought that perhaps our government operations folks would be looking at this to make a recommendation to us on that target number. So, it's not just a briefer all for all the new US use states. We kinda have a sense of how we're going to configure that. So it's pre thought, it's equitable, it's fair. Well, they can do that. All of them would do the drafts and the body plugs. Yeah, but here, kids are here. But here it says that they do it themselves. That the SUs do it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's how it works now, right?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's current law, correct. Now you are operating in different worlds, right? Current law is a voluntary process, well, it's not a voluntary process, but the state board is adjusting those boundaries and there are no supervisory unions that are as large as what you are contemplating here. So it's really a policy decision. I have just put in current law.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We have different models of the way that SUs put that together themselves over time, and they're all a little bit different. But it tends to be one or two members from each district depending on sizes.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there is a provision in current law that we have that this draft is not proposed to change. So, it says section two sixty six, which is a reference on line 13. For the purpose of holding meetings and transacting the business of an SU, the school board of any district assigned to an SU having more than three members shall elect from such board three members who shall represent and act for meetings of the SU to which it is assigned. But the school board of any district that employs no teacher shall have only one vote, so the supervisor in each meeting. So there is a little piece of current law that we're also relying on to

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So give us that again, that's not work.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to share my screen? Sure. So for the purpose of holding meetings and transacting the business of an SU, the school board of any district assigned to an SU and having more than three members shall elect from such board three members who shall represent and act for it in meetings of the SU to which it is assigned. But the school board of any district that employs no teacher shall have only one vote in said Supervisory Union meeting.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the Supervisory Union, let's say, has New Supervisory Union has four districts. Let's play it out. So from each board, there would be how many members from each of the four boards for the supervisor union board?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I don't think you can just assign a number to it. I think there's lots of variables. One of them being what's the student population of each of the districts going into this new last year as an example. I don't think we should share that with some of our colleagues, start them way in on the process. There's always been even the way they are now. There's always been questions about who we have to have the two members and how come we got this money here? So we need to set that and we can't I don't think we have bandwidth to address that again and I

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: question whether they need to get into this at all because they've always done it themselves they've always done it and I don't know why we would need to because we're trying to I've been trying to make this be as organic and non prescriptive as possible. It's the whole democracy question that we've been we were peppered with two months ago. Goes back to what I've been

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: saying all along is that everything supervisor has a different opinion. We should have renamed SU something different, probably, because this is current law. It's gonna get confused with what we're trying to accomplish. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Let's put a bit on this.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So do you do you recommend it? I do I do agree with putting a pin in. I do recommend bringing our government ops voters into this question because this is this is central to their function.

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

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna move on to subsection b? Yeah. Okay. Page 17, section five, subsection b, line 17. Roles in authority during the transitional period. During the transition period, the supervisor reunions in a Oh, sorry, we didn't talk about line 16, which is very important. The operational date of new supervisor unions shall be 07/01/2027. So you're giving them a year, essentially, assuming that this bill takes effect no later than 07/01/2026 to become operational. So, during So, between when the language take the facts, when the bill is signed, and the new supervisory unions become operational, that's the transition period. So, the supervisory unions in existence on 07/01/2026 shall continue to provide administrative planning and educational services for their member school districts until the new supervisor unions create pursuant to this act or operation. The transition board, on page 18, shall develop bylaws for the new SU that shall address how the expenses of the SU are including those associated with central office and those associated with the provision of special education services shall be assessed to member school districts. The new transition board shall take all actions necessary to ensure the SEU is able to fully comply with and execute each duty assigned to a supervisory union pursuant to 16 BSA two sixty one A not later than the operation date of the new SU. So rather than list out, try and try and anticipate every single action, You're just saying they need to do everything they need to do to become fully compliant. I think, I think you can, from, from a legal perspective, without being in the field, I think this language is fine. You may get feedback from the field saying, this isn't prescriptive enough or we want more direction. And if you get that feedback, I would say, you need I'm not the one who's going to be able to help you in making that list. You would really need that direction from the field, and I would be careful anytime we make a list to always run the risk of leaving something off, and then there's ambiguity over, well, they didn't specifically enumerate it, so are we supposed to do it? So it is a little bit of an art, not a science. So all that to say, I think subdivision three is meant as a catchall, and it is really a policy choice as to how specific you wanna get in there.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Have we been on transition? This is Section five is all transition work.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Okay, yes. You haven't made any changes to supervisory union duties in general? So, on line nine on page 18, you require the transition board to comply with current law for the transition of employees. So, we're lucky in that chapter 53, sub chapter three, entitled 16, already provides for transition of employees from one body to another, whether it's school district or supervisory. And again, I'm just reading the black letter of the law. You may get feedback from a field that says, hey, this is on a scale that is not contemplated under current law. We need some changes here. But there is a provision in that subchapter already for transition employees. So subsection C is a report requirement. On or before December 1, State Board of Education shall submit a written report to the House and Senate Committees on Education with recommendations for, and there's two recommendations, you may wanna consider pulling this out into a whole separate section. Right now it's living in this transition section. So the state board is required to make two separate recommendations. One is for adjustments to supervisory union boundaries within the gray area. And two.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So paragraph one is all the grayer. Corrections.

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

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then on page 19, subdivision, oh, and sorry, and so those recommendations, if you go to page 19, line three, those recommendations shall result in supervisory unions with an aggregate average daily membership of all member school districts within a supervisory union of not less than 2,500 students and may include supervisory districts if the average daily membership of a supervisory district is also not less than 2,500 students. That's the first recommendation. The second

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So just, all the, all of the 12 SCUs are greater than, they're all, I think actually, you know, 2,700, but made it 25 here. So roughly the same, same scale. So I do appreciate that in this version of the map and maybe in a previous one, you've started to include the number of schools which are in each one

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: of these proposed SUs. Again, I think that superintendents lead principals in schools. They don't lead students. So I'm a little and I don't need no need to resolve this today, but I'm so leery on putting the the superintendent was outlining the superintendent responsibilities per SU by student numbers and not by numbers of facilities, numbers of principals. It's just perspective because because, again, you you've offered the number of schools on now, and they and some are three times bigger than the others as far as the number of principals that they're dealing with. Think that's just it's germane. I'll leave it.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The second piece of the report back is a recommendation for the state board for school district mergers within new supervisory union boundary recommendations submitted pursuant to the subdivision right above this, which shall result in a recommendation of a total of 10 school districts as practical within the boundaries of the supervisory unions listed in Subdivision 1. So within the gray area, what are recommendations to you all for school district mergers in the gray area?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So just to make sure everybody gets this, right now the red lines in the gray area, they are both a district and a supervisory union. They are single district supervisory unions under the actuary.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry, say that

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: again.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: They are single district supervisory unions.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think in the gray area, there's at least one supervisory union with multiple member school districts, but the majority of them are supervisory districts.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we're trying

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to get a photo of

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that number down to 10 and all of them begin to be 25, 500 something.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Right now there's 22,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: would I count? But if we kept down to the 10, it would result in 22. 12 plus 10.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: I have a question that I wanted to ask before we hit three, but is there anywhere in this bill that addresses the special education funding gap with regarding the maintenance of efforts? Is that addressed in other

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: bills? Or It's Well, it's connected to the foundation for the loop that passed last year. Yeah. We haven't gotten we're at we haven't gotten anything for that. Shouldn't be. Yeah. Okay. So, we're doing this. This would result in us doing the 12 SUs now, this legislative session, and then the board would make a recommendation to us for getting down to 10 in the gray area next year. So, we're gonna get that? Yep, that's good. Okay.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm just looking at the clock. You have me until 03:15, but there's no way we're gonna get through the next chunk of the fifteen minutes. So how do you wanna start and then pick up again? I don't know the next time I will be in your committee.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think probably not until Friday maybe.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's time to get to. I

[Esther Holden (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: think they'd

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: be a book for a call or Thursday.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I see that now.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, why don't we just do another section?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I don't think we'll yeah. Okay. Alright. So, are again, reader assistant headings, I think, are very helpful. So, we're out of the supervisory union reader assistance heading, and we're into the school district consolidation reader assistance heading. Section six.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And that means you're talking, now we're back to the cohort area, to the 12 SCU.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I hadn't necessarily meant that, but that is true, yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So school district consolidation. Reduction in the number of school districts. So I'm on page 19, line 14. On or before 07/01/2029, the state shall provide educational opportunities through approximately 50% fewer school districts than exist on 07/01/2026, through the actions described in this section. Supervisory union member district mergers. On as before 09/01/2026, the member school district boards of the following SCUs shall establish study committees to study the advisability of forming a new or expanded union school district in any combination that results in the reduction in the number of individual member school districts to a total of 48 school districts as practical across all supervisory units listed in subdivisions one through, and that should be 12 of this subsection, pursuant to the processes and requirements of Chapter 11 of Title 16.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, let's It's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So,

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the goal is on line fifteen and sixteen. So, on or before 07/01/2029, you've gotten down to fewer than or approximately 50% fewer. And then on or before 09/01/2026, the study committees need to form.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I missed that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so supervisory union will spark the process of the study committees?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is nothing in here that directs how those study committees are formed other than referencing current state law. And current state law is just two or more school districts getting together and forming a study committee voluntarily. So absent any specific direction, you would just be relying on school districts to pick and choose amongst their supervisory union co members to decide who should be on a study committee with who.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. And we can add more direction there?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, so if they just they they didn't do anything, would they would they be left?

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They would be subject to the state board merger. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So, this is, okay. So we are at the point where they, it's in their best interest to follow through on this, because if not, they're gonna get the proceedings. That's where probably every district should get a list of what their criteria is so they can

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: start criteria is so they can start talking to each other to say, hey. Let me ask a superintendent. Would that help, Jamie? If once we decide on this, sending out that so everybody knows what's going on? Or do you believe everybody's following close enough that amongst your self selves, it it would start happening?

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: Yeah. I mean, I like about this process is it provides the opportunities for districts to voluntarily go work and find their neighbors to work with, but you've also taken care of any geographical isolation. So it allows them, as I said, when I testified to you earlier that successful districts we've seen via act 46 created a roadmap. There was buy in locally. Right? There was the sense that it wasn't being told how they had to merge. And I do think that district boards went through this during Act 46, it's the same mechanism. They will know how to go look at their neighbors and decide whether or not it makes sense for them to pursue a study committee.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Going as a superintendent, going back for a second to an earlier discussion, are you worried, Jamie, or or what what's your reaction to the discussion we had about whether we just let the member districts of the USU form on their own and figure out their own path forward or do you think board guidance is actually required?

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: You talking about the board makeup? Yeah. So in statute right now, non operators have one vote. Yeah. Operators have three, that's included for unified school districts, right? Multi member town districts. There is a subsection within statute that came into law maybe in 2021, somewhere in there, that a district so one, through their their articles of agreement, an SU board can reconfigure the voting members of the SU. They can take action on that within their articles of agreement. If a district board that is larger in regards to ADM of an SU feels that they should have a larger percentage vote on the SU board, they can petition the state board with that request.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, so the default is there's four districts, one of them's non operating.

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: So you'd 10 board members, Three, three, three, one. Let's say if one of those operators made up 80% of the SU, average daily membership, And they couldn't come to an agreement. The smaller districts are worried that the larger district rights just gonna unilaterally control how the the SU is operating. But the larger district feels like they should have a more percentage, larger percentage vote, but they couldn't come to an agreement around this, around there's there are articles of agreement. That district can take a vote and petition the makeup of the SU board to the state board. I don't remember what subsection that's.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's two sixty one subsection d, I believe, is what you're referring to, where it allows the state board to waive requirements of the title with respect to board structure, or board meetings, or the staffing pattern of the SU, is that what you're referring to?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, we're getting back to this, we digressed for a second, or if I did, back to the discussion about SU board makeup maintenance and discussion by ten ninety one and fatigue. So I had, this is the first time I actually understood what that section said. Let's say there's four districts, one of them's non operating, three of them are operating, the non operating gets one vote, the other three each get three. So that board of leadership will have 10 board members and if one of those four had 80% of the population and they only got three versus the other two that were tiny, they can petition the state board to break out of that mold of one three three three and say we should get any sense because we're so much bigger, and the state board decides.

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: That actually just happened recently with Central Vermont Supervisory Union Paint Mountain petition the state board. Because this was on the works, the state board didn't take action.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So it remained three and three with Echo Valley County.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Well, I hear you. I don't I don't see that kind of language in here. It right.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's it's just because it's not referenced because it's current law.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. It's incorrect. That actually happened in the district highway. They were never happy with the result. So but also. So highly recommend that when this section gets mature, that it it goes flying through the guys, they put their fingerprints on it, and then, you know, continues along its journey. Yeah. True. Because that it ends up affecting. Okay. We start it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We we at least know what this if we do nothing, we know what happens. And then the question is do we want to amend or want to change that now?

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: You may have brought this up when you were cutting this chat up, but what about if in a district that's got independent schools, non operating? It, this is about the governance piece. So the district that's non operating or semi operating that uses independent schools, they're still represented, potentially represented with a smaller number of governance seats members.

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: All operating districts by statute get three, even non operating districts that are partially operating. So if it's a k six operating district and has non operating seven through 12 per statute, they still get three members on the SU board. Only a completely non operating district doesn't operate any grades, gets one.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So like up in Essex, Northeast Kingdom, there's a lot that just only get one.

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: Within their SU if they're nonoperators. And for us, it's Grandville Hancock has one voting member because they're a nonoperator.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So I I didn't make this clear enough. So nonoperating, but they their kids go to an independent school. They may account for 80% of the region's population district. They they could could could. My point is that, is it more about student population, or is it about the districts themselves that are represented on the board?

[Jamie Canarney, Superintendent, Windham Road Valley Supervisory Union]: It's about average daily membership. And so those students who go to an independent school that the district's paying on behalf, that still counts as part of

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: their average daily membership. That's the question.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good place to stop. So we'll see you on Thursday.

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Do you want to pick up where we left off on draft 7.1 and then I would make changes once we're completely through draft so seven point that we're not bouncing back and forth and trying to remember.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sure. That makes that sense. We should have seen

[Beth (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, we're going to start, I'm saying this in case I forget and I have to go back and watch YouTube. We're gonna start in section seven next time on schedule. Yeah. Welcome. Thank

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you. Welcome. We'll take a quick break? Yes. We haven't been late. To have time. Quick break. Sounds off, but we go to physical. Why don't we