Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome everybody. This is the Senate Education Committee they have in May Thursday, April 2. We got a few things on the agenda today. We're gonna start with legislative council, Beth St. James. We have half an hour to petition. Get through four more sections. Draft seven. One and we're starting on section seven. I remember because you made us read the first. And we'll last meeting.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Beth Saint James, office of Legislative Council. I'm glad you remembered. I'm just signing into YouTube. Or YouTube. Zoom. I'm signing into.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Thank

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: By the way, people people can see this on the agenda, but that would work with best way we're gonna switch into.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we left on page 20 of draft 7.1. Section seven, which is operation model protection. And this language is taken pretty much directly from act four and six. So nothing in this act shall be we've gone over this before, haven't we? Yeah. You haven't. But we're doing a line by line walkthrough. Absolutely. Okay. Yep. So nothing okay. Is actually construed to restrict or repeal or to authorize, encourage, or contemplate the restriction or appeal of the availability of a school district or the ability of a school district that provides for the education of all resident students in one or more grades by paying tuition on the student's behalf to continue to do that, or by operating a school offering the greater grades to continue to do that. School operation. All governance transitions contemplated pursuant to this act shall preserve the ability of a district that provides the education of all resident students in one or more grades by operating a school for all students in the greater grades if it chooses to do so and shall not require the district to pay tuition for students if it ceases to exist, excuse me, as a discrete entity and realigned to a post supervisory district or union district. All governance transitions contemplated pursuant to this act shall preserve the ability of the district to provide to the education of all resident students in one or more grades by paying tuition on the student's behalf, to continue to provide education by paying tuition on behalf of all students, if it chooses to do so, and shall not require the district to limit the options available to students if it ceases to exist as a discrete entity and realign the public as district or union school district. And then nothing in this section shall prohibit school districts regardless of their operating structure from voluntarily merging pursuant to the processes and requirements of chapter 11. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's good.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Section eight is evaluation by the state board of education. So, these are some things that the State Board is required to consider when evaluating a proposal to create a Union School District, which is part of the current law process for Union School District formation in Chapter 11. So we're on page 22.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: When

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: evaluating a proposal to create a Union School District pursuant to Chapter 11, including a proposal submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section six of this Act, the state board shall consider whether their proposal is designed to meet the goals set forth in section one of this act and to reduce the number of school districts as set forth in section six A of this act. Be mindful and be mindful of any other district in the region that may become geographically isolated, including the potential isolation of a district with low fiscal capacity or with a high percentage of students from economically deprived backgrounds as identified in 16 BSA subsection 4,010. The request of the state board, the secretary of education shall work with a potentially isolated district and other districts in the region to move toward voluntary merger that does not result in such isolation. The state board is authorized to deny approval to a proposal that would geographically isolate the district that would not be an appropriate member of another governance structure in the region, Provided, however, the notwithstanding 16 BSA subdivision seven zero nine(two), the State Board shall approve other mergers formed pursuant to this act that do not geographically isolate its districts.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this is an important point here, think, that we're saying if two districts want to merge, they can merge, and the only thing that we have to be careful about at State Board's Office to look at is whether they are gonna create more. Okay?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Bear with, I'm sorry. I just have a moment. Apologies. So we're on section nine now. Non merging district proposals. This is again very similar to the process that happened in Act 46. Not exactly the same, but it's different. On or before 11/30/2027, the board of each school district listed in subsection section six, subsection B, that is not a member of a newly formed school district, or that does not expect to become a member of a newly formed school district on or before 07/01/2029, either on that district's own behalf or jointly with the boards of other districts, shall submit a proposal to the Secretary of Education and the State Board in which the district proposes to retain its current governance structure, to work with other districts to form a different governance structure, or to enter into another model of joint activity. Demonstrates through reference to enrollment projections, students to staff ratios, the comprehensive data collected pursuant to the education quality standard and otherwise, how the proposal submitted pursuant to the section supports the district's or district's ability to meet or exceed each of the goals set forth in section one of this act, and identifies detailed actions it proposes to take to continue to improve its performance in connection with each of the goals in section one of the factors.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this would then help inform the State Board as we go to the next section.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Section 10, final state action. Agency of Education's proposal. In order to modernize Vermont school district government structures to 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 subsection B to a total of 48 districts as factual. So remember that's the non gray area. The secretary shall, I'm on page 24 now, review the governance structures of the school districts and supervisory unions listed in section six subsection B as they will exist or are anticipated to exist on 07/01/2029. The review shall include consideration of any proposals submitted by districts or groups of districts pursuant to Section nine of this Act in conversations with those other districts. On or before 06/01/2028, the Secretary Shaldevil published on the Agency of Education's website and presented to the State Board of Education a proposed plan that, to the extent necessary to promote the purpose of data at the beginning of this subsection, would merge districts into larger school districts in an effort to reduce the number of school districts located within the SU, the SUs to a total of 48 school districts as practical. The agency shall only recommend merging districts with the same operating structures and districts within the same supervisory union. If it is not possible or practical to develop a proposal that realigns some districts where necessary in a manner that adheres to the protections of section seven of this act, which is the protection for tuition paying and operating districts, then the proposal may also allow some school districts not to merge and instead to continue to exist and operate as they did as of 07/01/2026. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the hope is that just the mergers will happen voluntarily, the suspension will never actually come in.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Then, but if it does, it limits the state board to get down to 48. So hopefully, to the extent this section needs all, it's just the work that has been the New Year's.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Just to split Harris a little bit. Yep. They can't get it below 48?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The board can't. The board doesn't have it, yeah.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay, but it could happen organically.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Organically, anything can happen. Okay. Yep.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: So on page 24, line 19, subdivision three, any mergers proposed by the agency shall be based on the following consideration. School districts with small student counts shall be a priority for mergers. And I did not make that, the student count language change there to EDM, so I'll make note of that. Is it defined in the Average daily membership is, we're gonna use that term and that's defined, but the word small is not defined. We're leaving it.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. Beth actually was making, remember last time she said I'm not gonna make the changes?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Actually made

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: this note to yourself, I think.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: No, I wasn't gonna make the changes we went over last week This in the was the change I should have made for this draft, I'm we making that note for next week. And maybe I missed it, but we're gonna have a specific ABF number, or just we're gonna say small?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, so the board would theoretically, if it comes to the past that they need to merge seven districts or whatever, they would start with the look at the smallest districts, the smallest ADM count districts first. That's the idea.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Does that make sense? I'm just thinking.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It doesn't say that they have to merge small to small because the small could get merged into the large, but they will, but merchants will probably use the pricing.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: But do we want glass size? Do we want high for people spending?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This this. Yeah. Fair discussion. But this proposal is just a student count.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Small student count in their district.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. First district's in small student counts.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. And it's kind of suggest suggested. You're suggesting small.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. That probably does go to small class size indirectly.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: On page 25, while school districts do not need to be contiguous in order to be merged, such mergers shall take into account the geography of each applicable school district and any other geographical areas affected by a proposed merger. Will the merged school district have adequate infrastructure capacity to consolidate schools should such a need develop? Should Oh, and I just can't get that site. Shall be merged. Taken out there. Will the merger lead to improved opportunity for resident students, and will the merger lead to the potential to gain staffing and administrative efficiencies? And I would note here that we wanted to add, will the verdure result in net cost savings?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so that's the agency's review. Now, that review goes to the state board, and the state board makes a final plan. So, or before 11/30/2028, the State Board shall review and analyze the Secretary's proposal under the provisions in subsection A of the section, may take testimony or ask for additional information from districts and SUs, shall approve the proposal either in its original form or in an amended form that adheres to the provisions of subsection A of this section, and shall publish on the agency's websites or in emerging and green lining districts. The board shall be prohibited for merging school districts whose operating structures differ as of 07/01/2026, and shall only order the merger of districts that are members of the same supervisor union. And then on or before 11/30/2028, the state board is required to submit a written report to you all with recommended supervisory union boundaries that reflect the new school districts created through the voluntary merger process pursuant to section six of this act, and the board's order merging and realign school districts pursuant to subdivision one of this subsection. Applicability. This section shall not apply to an interstate school district, a school district not listed in section six feet, which is the gray area. The gray area would be the school districts that are not listed in six feet. A Regional Career Technical Center School District formed under 16 BSA Chapter 37 Subchapter 5A, or a school district that between 07/01/2026 and 07/01/2028, began to operate at the Unified Union School District or obtained an affirmative vote of all necessary districts to voluntarily merge into a new union school district pursuant to Section six of this act. Provided, however, that as part of the State Board's plan developed pursuant to subsection B of this section, State Board may realign a newly formed and unified Canadian School District to include a geographically isolated district where necessary to achieve the goals of this act.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So people get that. We're saying that if you merge, two districts merge, they're left alone after that. The only exception would be if they have created an orphan destructive. We should have taken that in the first, back a couple sections where we talked about the state, the agency, making sure that that doesn't happen, and that we're not approving, so it's just almost a reiteration. But it really is saying that if two districts merge, they don't get forced to re merge with somebody else. Can you remind me how many districts do we have in total again? 119 total. In the 12, in 12, think it's 97.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I don't know.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think it's 97.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: So if, because I think highly unlikely, but if every one of them merges with at least one of the districts, we're down to fifty nine and fifty nine districts, and they will theoretically be left alone if they've merged, But then the State Board of Education has the ultimate or the as a requirement to make it to bring it down to 48, how would that work?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, so the 48 is within the 12. So it's 97 to 48 within the 12, but that's a separate process for the grant.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Are we we defining Orphan District?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Geographically, I sort terminology in and out of that 46, right?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I don't wanna commit to that off the top of my head. It's definitely possible. I can't remember at this moment. Okay. Because I guess for me, it's more than that, learning what we learned from equity stakes. Like, it's an equity issue. And then I kind of like, like, let's talk about set children on it. You know? It it could I mean, in a way, could add cost because certain districts don't wanna partner with the district that's right next to them. I so I don't want to limit our consideration just to geographic. I guess I guess one of those could be considered geographic, but I want it to save money, and I want it to make sure no kids get left behind.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, that's the intent with

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: the geographic

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: isolation, or not letting that out. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I don't think geographic isolation captures it, but it could be like the spirit So of this

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it's sort of geographic isolation that results in less opportunity.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For kids, at least kids mentioned. So let's think about how to say that and note that, because I think that's a good point, because that is the end.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Right. I tried to say this to my school district, but they might want to merge with a certain other district. Let's say they want to merge with another one in Chittenden County. There might be a district in Addison County that wants to merge with our district. I guess, I don't know if it would count as geographic isolation if the district closer to the SUs didn't have the ability to merge with them because they merged with somebody.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We do have a section here to allow for changes of the boundaries. Got We to overclock. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: So so we like, as long as it's iterative because redistricting is very hard. You know? Yeah. It often leaves people.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. We have a process here to fix that after the fact that happens, but we're trying not to let it happen Yeah. With this language. But I think I like the idea somehow when we talk about geographic isolation, tying it to arbitrary cookies because that's the reason we're worried about it.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Right. It just redistricting can leave so many odd things like we've seen. Chairman, you said we have a process. I wasn't tracking what process you were talking about. I just wanna make sure

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For the for the for changing the boundaries of the

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: SUs. Well the the process is either you change them because you're the legislature and you set them or that charter change process.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. That's what I'm

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: talking Yeah. Okay. But

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: there's no specific process for changing school district boundary. That is just the Chapter 11 process.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right. And they can be done voluntarily and depending on that as well, we don't leave. So isolated.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we are on page 26, section 11. Secretary of Education shall regularly review, evaluate, and keep the State Board and General Assembly advised of the following. The discussion, studies and activity among districts to move voluntarily toward creating new larger school districts pursuant to section six of this act and the data and other information collected in connection with education quality standards and related on-site education quality reviews, including data and information regarding the equity of educational opportunities, academic outcomes, personalization of learning, a safe school climate, high quality staffing, and financial efficiency. Because I, where is that? Page 26. Position 11. What am I working at? We're on draft 7.1 over I won't remember the list, but I'd like to include maybe some consideration for career technical education. So just access to CTV. Yeah. I can think more about how to frame it, but one of the problems is you might be in a catchment area for CTE that doesn't have health services, and it's very hard for you to get out of your district and go to another. Like, I just wanna make sure that the holistic access to universal CTV is a consideration, something like that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What's a new status?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Placement. As far as some

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: sort of influence draft there. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: So we're on page 27, section 12, exploration and transition grants. So notwithstanding 16 BSA section 4,025, which is the language we use when we are appropriating money out of the Ed Fund for one of its non enumerated uses. So, notwithstanding 16 DSA section 4,025, within fifteen days following the date each transitional board of each SU created pursuant to this act holds a meeting to elect a chair and other officers, the Secretary of Education shall from the Education Fund pay each transitional board an SU transition facilitation grant in the amount of $250,000 Secretary? Sorry.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You remember this, right? The section of why yeah. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I do.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I do. Okay. It's 400,000,000 per per per SU for each of the 12 SUs. And so we got them through that year and everything they're gonna have to do higher attorneys and other things that results. It's gonna take the capacity to invest in. That was a that number is, actually, I haven't done this before this way, that number, I think, one point we had it been higher, and I believe James had already sent a page.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Study committee grants. The agency of education shall from the Ed Fund reimburse up to $10,000 of fees paid by two or more school districts for facilitation, legal, and other consulting services necessary for the initial exploration of the advisability of forming a new union school district for study committees that convene pursuant to Section six zero seven on or after 07/01/2026.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That was in Act 106 as well, right?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I think it was actually Act 163 of twenty ten. There was a reimbursement grant and it got kind of carried along by reference in Act 156 and then Act 46. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. So what's the what's the kind of, timeline logic here between so let's say we have two small districts in the gray area looking at merging, they get 10 k. I think you'd be thinking more about the 12, I think, than the SUs or that it because there's a there's a go ahead. Okay. No. Keep going because I'm just trying to figure out the differentiation between why one why an SU would need a quarter million and a two districts coming together with these 10,000. So in the short run, the the SU is a much bigger deal to to put together because they have to even begin to hire a superintendent before the next year they started. They need to hire a consultant. It's a much bigger process to put the staff together and do everything. And the 10,000 is just really for the almost the talking stage of merger. Okay. So there's a next number in the next section. So the the 10,000 is just a little bit of money that no. Okay. Same with the initial.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: On page 28, line three, subdivision three, merger support grants. After voter approval of a plan of merger that was developed by a study committee pursuant to section six of this act on or after 07/01/2026, the Secretary of Ed may pay the transitional board of the New Union School District a transition facilitation grant from the Ed Fund equal to the elector of 10% of the base education amount established in 16 BSA 4,001 subdivision 13, multiplied by the greater of either the combined enrollment or the average daily membership of the emerging districts on October 1 of the year in which the successful vote was taken. So that's your base times ADM essentially, or 300,000. So whatever's less would be the new district's merger support plan.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Again, now we're talking about gray area. Two or more smaller districts coming together. They've agreed amongst themselves. They've gotten through the initial 10,000 grant stay. Yeah. Although it's probably in this we're still talking here. This is the this is the Oh, it's just the two layers of districts. And this came out of that 46. I believe Perjunct branch. Which the number a little bit?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: It was five percent and one hundred and fifty thousand in terms

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: of So it's the 40,000,000 supervisory unions at the formation of these 12 supervisory unions? No. It's just 300,000 for two districts. Two districts merchant. Two of those two districts. Yeah. Districts merchant. Because they've got their own comp there's their own complications. And it's up to the secretary of May. May. She wanna shout for the supervisor here in May for the when that came out of Act 46, we just increased the number because of inflation.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: This is just too voluntary.

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

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I'm on line 14, page 28. A new school district form pursuant to the recommendation of a study committee established pursuant to Section six of this Act on or after 07/01/2026 shall be eligible for a grant under this subdivision three, that's the merger support grant, if the newly formed union school district has an average daily membership of 3,000 or more students or at least 15 separate towns or cities located within the new district's geographical boundaries. Merger support grant shall be available through fiscal year 2032, and eligible newly formed union school districts shall only be eligible for a merger support grant pursuant to the section during the fiscal year following voter approval of a plan of merger, so one time. Page 29, Honor, beginning on 12/01/2026, an annual

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: By the way, sorry, Doctor. Kesha You should think more about this section, because I think the number of those numbers may be too high. Then those things change the 3,000 students to 15 maybe too high for what we're actually gonna accomplish here, let's just come back to that and just circle it.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I'm just watching the time. You have me until 02:30. Do you wanna keep going with this or switch gears?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We should switch gears because I think it's important to hear the get into the problem. So if you do have a chance to understand what's in the best of me, it's still. So, funny enough. So I'll note where we left off.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Page 29, line three, subdivision four. So we're gonna switch gears to a walk through of page nine thirty one as passed by the house. Do you want me to share my screen?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We all have barred boxes. Okay. Are

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: we ready? Okay. So this is an accolade into miscellaneous changes in education law. I think the reader assistance headings in this bill are really helpful because this is a miscellaneous bill, so the topics are all over the place. So section one is an amendment to the moratorium on approval of new independent schools that was created in the budget 2023. So subsection A was added in the budget in 2023, and it creates a prohibition on the state board from approving an application for initial approval of an approved independent school until further direction by the general assembly. So, schools that are already approved, the applications for renewal could be processed, but if it was a new initial application, the moratorium would have gone through.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's correct, Paul. Yeah. So why it's doing here? Because it's changing. Seeds gotta change it. I think you just left this in for reference to help people understand what's going on. Correct. Yeah. It's the first two. So we're doing what she's doing. We either we we don't have an opportunity to support it or or not support it. I mean, I'm not really sure what. Really sure. So we have a war in '23, the one in such a half, the moratorium when they went to Pennsylvania. And now what we're doing with, you know, if we see at the bottom of her page is that the standing. That's all that we're doing.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: If you're a few to explore.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. It's not to reopen that discussion.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Subsection c, not with stands on subsections a and b, and it says that the moratorium on approval of a new approved independent school shall not apply to changes in ownership of therapeutic approved independent schools. If submission of an application for initial approval of an approved independent school is required as the result of a change in ownership of a therapeutic approved independent school, that at the time of the change in ownership is already approved by the State Board, and the school will remain a therapeutic approved independent school after the change in ownership is complete, then the moratorium does not apply and the Agency of Education and State Board of Education are required to process the application according to applicable state and federal law?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yes. Would it be correct to summarize it as if there's a change in ownership of a therapeutic school doesn't initiate, or if it doesn't walk into a territory of the moratorium, and so they can change ownership without

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, there's more requirements. So, it has to be a therapeutic approved independent school, it's a change of ownership, the school has to already be approved by the state board, and it has to remain a therapeutic school after And the change of the way I've been kind of thinking of this is this language would get that application in the door. Like, the moratorium is a shut is a door that is shut. This language would open the door for the application. And then this language does nothing about whether or not all of the other requirements in order for the application to be processed are met. It's just getting in the door for that initial application to be reviewed under applicable state law.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Would this allow a change from a for profit to a non profit? So if

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: you look at subsection B, which you added last year, a change in either tax status or conversion to a nonprofit organization by a therapeutic approved independent school, absent any other changes, will not affect the approval status of the school. So that is essentially saying a new initial application would need to be triggered in a change of tax status. I'll just raise this since we have it and may have time to go into the issue, but I personally don't see the need for the moratorium on therapeutic schools at all. We we have a shortage. I wasn't here for the testimony that led to the moratorium, but I do have friends in my district who are told their kids are not suitable for the local school, and they have no option. Well,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: let's make a note. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I I like to really get that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I go one step further. I I don't believe in court charges at all. It's anti

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Maybe that's swai. I love this.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's like support exactly what Senator Ram Hinsdale said. They just process twice to or to become a therapist. Right? Army dentistry? Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I don't want us to come next year and say, oh, so if you wanna become this kind of therapeutic school, it's okay. Like, I haven't gotten the sense.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: K.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: We have too many.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Could that be because we basically said that we're not gonna improve anymore in the kind of school while we're this? Yeah. Yeah. So that would be something. That would be something. And I Yep. Yep. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: So section two, several pages, and in the interest of time, I think I can just summarize it very quickly. Section two is Vermont adopting the interstate compact for education. So you all have had folks from the Education Commission of the State come in and testify in front of you many times, and that is the interstate compact for educate Vermont was a member of the Interstate Compact for several years until the early 90s when we withdrew. I do not know why we withdrew, but we have been paying dues sporadically since then, and we have been sending commission members sporadically since then. Section two, which is the Vermont readopting the Interstate Compact for Education, becoming a member of the compact. This language is almost exactly the same as it was when we withdrew in the 90s. And I think we're one of two states that are not currently members. So, that's all section two does.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Does the interstate compact do for us?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Well, I don't know that I can answer that question, but I can refer you to the language. I think, I think the, on page two, line 11, or line 12, it is the purpose of this compact two, I think this is the best summary you're gonna get. So, establish and maintain close cooperation and understanding among executive legislative professional education and leadership on a nationwide basis at the state level, forum for discussion, clearinghouse for information, etcetera.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Quick question. This may be a question for representative common, but I'm not necessarily I'm not opposed to the concept just based on what I heard, but it seems pretty substantive for a miscellaneous bill. Is there any background as to why it's not an independent bill? It didn't seem like a technical change?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I don't think I did. I don't so the it's an interesting question. The miscellaneous bill is not labeled as a technical corrections bill. So, I think historically, miscellaneous education bills have just been a bit of a Christmas tree. I think every subject matter treats their miscellaneous bills a little differently, but I don't think there's anything in this bill that comports it to be just technical corrections. I take your point, and I do think that is a question for Rutland as to why this language didn't travel on its own. Thanks.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We had last year's, not making that one way or the other, but last year's bill had a lot of substance in it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Trying to do that, the judiciary doesn't work over there? Yeah,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: don't have any feelings on it right now.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: So I'm, again, in the interest of time, we're gonna skip through reading the compact line by line, and we are gonna jump to page 14. Just to point out that sections three through 12 were deleted.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Three through 12 of what? The bill. Oh, okay. Oh, was it first, was

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: it your bill? Correct. Okay. Right, this is the as passed Okay. By the House The language that used to live in the section 300,012 was just voted out of House education an hour ago. And that was related to changing the name of BOCES to seesaws. So get ready to take seat that over and over over again. Page 15, new reader assistance heading, class size minimums. Section 13 amends Act 73, section seven, on line 13. I'll just read it. So, notwithstanding 16 BSA, section 165 subdivision A. Nine, C and subsection B, which is language that you all added last year in Act 73 for class size minimums. A school's failure to comply with the class size minimum requirements contained in 165 A9 shall not count towards the three consecutive school years of non compliance that enables the secretary to recommend action to the state board until the state board adopts updates to the EQS rules to reflect the class size minimums or 07/01/2027, whichever date shall come first. There was the class size minimums in statute take effect 07/01/2026. The state board was required in Act 73 to update the education quality standards to reflect the addition of those class size minimums to the education quality standards on or before I think 08/01/2026 or 2027. Anyway, there was a disconnect between when the statute took effect and when rule making was the last day for rule making to occur. And this is meant to just stay essentially a hold harmless. Right now, when class size minimums take effect on 07/01/2026, the Secretary of Education may take, may recommend action to the State Board if someone is not in compliance with class size minimums over the course of three consecutive school years. So this is saying that clock doesn't start ticking until those rules are in place, or 07/01/2027, whichever shall come first.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Recall the state board raised this as an issue in the section. You may not recall what the patient's consenting for a payment. Do you recall our logic? Well, I actually didn't think it was a particular issue because even though the rules came in later, we started the clock, but then as long as the rules were in place during that three years, I stopped the clock. It didn't matter, but they found it to be an issue, and this is just resolving it by pushing it out of there. They it was a problem there, but they put whatever.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Page 16, section 14, background checks. Is adding section 14 adds a brand new section to title 16. And it this section 25.4A would be nestled right in with the other background check language in Title 16 related to superintendents and school district employees or contractors. And this language requires the agency of education to request criminal record information for a person the secretary is prepared to recommend for any full time, part time or temporary employment or contractual relationship with the agency if such person will have or have the potential to have unsupervised contact with students. After signing a user agreement, the secretary shall make a request for criminal records directly to BCI state or a request made under subsection B of the section shall be accompanied by a release signed by the applicant on a form provided by BCIC and instead of the applicant's fingerprints. The agency shall pay the fingerprinting fee and shall pay any fee required by the FBI associated with a fingerprint supporting criminal record check and the release form to be signed by the applicant shall include a statement informing the applicant of the right to challenge the accuracy of the record by appealing to the BCIC pursuant to rules adopted by the Commissioner of Public Safety and Secretary of Education's policy regarding maintenance and destruction of records and the applicant's right to request that that record notice be maintained for purposes of using it to comply with future criminal record checks, requests made pursuant to section two fifty six of this title.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's all I'm gonna say.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: This is all new language. This language is copied almost exactly from from section two fifty four in title 16, which is for superintendents, background checks for superintendents. Upon completion of her criminal record check, BCI, she shall send to the secretary a notice that no record exists, or if a record exists a copy of any criminal record. And if a copy of a criminal record is received, the secretary is required to forward to the applicant and shall inform the applicant in writing of the right to challenge the accuracy, and then that maintenance and destruction of records policy. Secretaries also required to request and obtain information from the Child Protection Registry maintained by DCF and from the Vulnerable Adult Abuse, Neglection, and Exploitation Registry maintained by Dale for any applicant for whom a criminal record check is required. The departments for DCF and Dale shall adopt rules in accordance with three VSA Chapter 45 governing the process for obtaining this information. And then an applicant convicted for a sex offense that requires registration pursuant to 13 VSA Chapter 167 Chapter three shall not be eligible for employment agency. Again, this language is almost verbatim from record check requests or record check requirement language related to school district employees and superintendents. This is for agency of education employees or contractors, but only those who would have the potential to have or will have unsupervised contact with students. And then section 15 is just adding, this is that section that was referred to up in the section beforehand regarding maintenance of records for a new record, so a new records request. So future criminal record check requests. Just adding the agency of education on line 20, and then on page 19, line one, adding the agency of education in the list of employers who this section would apply to now that they are also doing background checks.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what does this section actually do? What's the issue? Is it solving? This

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: is a request made by the agency, and I have heard anecdotally some of the reasons why some of the background check is coming forward, but I think that's better testimony to give through witnesses. And then the effective date for the entire bill is 07/01/2026.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Questions for? God bless. Do we have Rutland coming in at 02:30? Do we want to actually switch back? We have you for ten more minutes?

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: That's your choice.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Switch back to available.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Twenty nine. So we're on page 29, draft 7.1, line three, subdivision four, beginning on 12/01/2026, and annually thereafter until December 1, oh, that's a big typo, 2031. The agency of education shall submit a written report to the education and money committees with information regarding contemplated and active school district mergers in a proposed appropriation amount for the applicable fiscal year to cover the costs associated with the grants created pursuant to this section. So, some of the grants that we just walked through are going, the amount of money you need for those grants is gonna be dependent on the activity that's happening in the field. You're not gonna be able to know that just sitting in these chairs without making testimony. So, this subdivision is meant to ask for the agency to collect the information you would need in order to make appropriate appropriation. The report shall include a list of districts, school districts that are members of active study committees, the date the study committee was formed and the status of any such study committee, a list of anticipated new union school districts that are likely to be formed during the applicable fiscal year and the forming members and anticipated average daily membership of each and proposed appropriation amounts for each for study committee grants and merger support grants for the applicable fiscal year based on the merger activity observed in the field. The agency shall include recommended appropriation amounts for SU transition facilitation grants, study committee grants, and emergency support grants as part of its budget submitted to the governor. And then page 30, section 13, are the appropriations to go along with all of the grants that we just walked through.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: For this coming fiscal year.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: For this coming fiscal year. And then subsection D does allow the funds to carry forward until fully expended or reverted. So 2,750,000.00 for Supervisory Union Transition Facilitation grants, 50,000 for study committee grants, and 600,000 for merger support grants.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, okay, so just the there's a so the $2.75 includes $2.50 for each of the 12 SUs and then it anticipates five expenditures of 10,000 as districts begin to do the work and it anticipates to drawing down the 300,000 or some portion thereof as they're actually. So that's there's a there's there's assumptions in there. Just want you to know what they are and then weigh that number as a placeholder for us to have relevant further discussion, make sure those assumptions make sense. No. Well, I'll say no, but if this passes, the 12 times the two fifty will be there by definition. Then the question is, is the 10 is the five times 10 the right number or and then the two actual merchants. Thanks, Leslie. Thanks, Jeremy. So those are the heels of the underlying assumptions. So, on with that.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: Foundation formula. We're in a new reader assistance heading. Section 14 amends section four zero one subdivision 16 as it will exist under the foundation formula. It amends the face amount, which has passed in act 73 with 15,033 to $16,780. And it asks for the inflator to be applied to the base amount on page 31 from fiscal year twenty seven forward instead of from fiscal year twenty five forward.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And we're good. Yes. How do we come up with that? The Doctor. Base? Well, Doctor. Base was and and the number is gonna change. We're gonna by the time we get together on Tuesday, that number will be a little bit different. But the basic theory is that the fifteen oh thirty three was tied to 2024. And since then, we've had increases of it's based on increases of five and a half and five and a half. So we took the fifteen oh thirty three, we'll divide times five and a half, then multiply it again by five and a half. The difference is gonna be that actually the five and a half is fine. Second five and a half is actually high budgets came in lower than that so that number will come down a little bit. And the idea behind the whole thinking is that with the 15,033 tied to 2,024, as that gets multiplied out by NEPA, which is a little bit, but three or a little bit less, and then without having the base get higher to where we actually have been spending, there's gonna be a cliff. And that cliff's gonna be a ball or something. That's the And we're going to see detail behind this on Tuesday.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: The last substantive section is on page 31, section 15. It amends the effective date section from Act 73, and it removes the contingencies for the effective dates. So, for subdivision or for subsection e, it's removing the contingency related to school district boundaries. And for subsection f, it's removing that contingency for the foundation formula and all the other sub divisions in this section to take effect and bumping the date out from 07/01/2028 to 07/01/2029. So there would no longer be contingencies for the foundation formula to take effect. It would just take effect on 07/01/2029. And then the effective dates are 07/01/2026. For everything except for section 14, which is the base change amount, that would take effect on 07/01/2029, along with the rest of the foundation going on.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Questions? See a new draft. I forgot when.

[Beth St. James, Legislative Counsel]: I think you have me in tomorrow at three. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We good? Great. Okay. We have three minutes to stand up.