Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We are live. Senate Education Committee afternoon on Friday, April 24.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're going to go back to the miscellaneous debt bill on page nine thirty one and review of the new draft since yesterday. Our new plan was turned since yesterday. With legislative council. Good afternoon,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St. James, office of Legislative Counsel. I have draft 3.1 for you all of a committee amendment to each nine thirty one as passed by the House, draft 3.1, and I've formatted I've kept it formatted as instances because you're not making changes to the bulk of the language in nine thirty one. So the first instance of amendment Do you want me to share my screen or do you all have it in front of you?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We all have it. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's striking out section 13 in its entirety and then replacing it with just the word deleted in brackets. And that was the class size minimums language.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep. With the intent of moving it to the the neutral.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I have not lost that language. No, no, no. I mean, like, I know The word is. It's traveling in the universe. It just this language doesn't reflect that. And then the second instance of amendment is you're going to strike out the effective date section, which is the last section of the bill, and you're going to replace it with one new section, which is the Intercollegiate Affectual Harm Prevention Council language that you walked through yesterday with Wendy and Charlie, and then you're also gonna add the effective date section back in after the new section. So, and I did make a couple changes, and they have seen Wendy and Charlie have seen this language. And I certainly don't wanna speak on their behalf, but I don't think they have any concerns about what you have in front of you, and I'll point out

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Probably two for a second.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Great. I'll point out the few places where I made some changes, and they appear to be okay with that. So we're on line 14, page one, the Intercollegiate Sexual Harm Prevention Council. They are suggesting to the subsection A, the creation, to add that language regarding so there's created the Intercollegiate Sexual Hog Prevention Council to advance best practices for prevention of and response to campus sexual harm, and then the membership is changed to what they recommend. And so that's on page two, the Title IX coordinator or designee from each post secondary school chartered in Vermont with a physical campus located within Vermont. A peer educator or advocate appointed by, and the language that you all looked at yesterday had the committee or the council itself appointing the peer advocate, and that's not best practice to have the council appoint its own members. So I reached out to Wendy and Charlie, and they have recommended that it be the Vice Provost for Student Affairs at UVM who appoints the peer educator or advocate. The third

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just to play that out a little bit. Would it well, the vice provost is I was thinking he shouldn't be the president who would that delegate to. But on the other hand, the vice provost is gonna talk to the president, so they'd love it. Okay?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's a it's a policy choice as to who it is. Yeah. But if you are okay with the vice provost, I don't think you need you can ask anyone you want to make this point.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. No. I'm not. Okay. I was just raising it for a committee. Normally, I'm.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: If I could just pull back page two line for the term chartered the post secondary school was chartered in Vermont. Is that considered the private universities such as Middlebury? Yes. Yep. Thank you. And

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then if we go down to line 14, the next change to the membership is the Executive Director of the Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence or Designee. The next change is the Program Coordinator of the Vermont Forensic Nursing Program or Designee. Then the last change is the Commissioner of Public Safety or Designee.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Where does that happen? Who is the program director? Not necessarily the name of the person, the Vermont Forensic Nursing Program. Is that only one place, the Forensic Nursing Program, or is that?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is, I believe, my understanding is that the Vermont, and this is just literally from Googling, which is what my law degree has bought me, They appear to be a program that provides services to survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, etcetera. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The, the Okay, yeah, sure, right.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Think that, I think they have, got it. Someone who's ahead of them. Okay. If you will.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then the Commissioner of Public Safety is the last member, and then all of the other members that exist in current law, all of that language is struck. So when you see this language in the green books next year, it's gonna be nice and cleaned up. It's just gonna be one, two, three, four, five.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Commissioners, public safety. No,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The commissioner of public safety for Vermont.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, probably last year was the second.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This Didn't

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: they just make me UPS a

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me let me use that law degree to Google that.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Because I know each university and college has a safety and a search. My

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: understanding is that this is the State of Vermont Commissioner of Public Safety. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: At the Department of Public Safety.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm. Yep. TPS. So there would be a commissioner because they're a department, not an agency. Oh.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But good good good because I thought I was the executive board and.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, someone from the administration reached out. Correct? Okay. Yeah. So.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So there was, we had a conversation yesterday where it was the last time we talked about this.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Violence prevention

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Director. Yeah, it seems appropriate to be rolled into this group, but I understand you're you also had a comment that that that they can access anybody, but this is again program that we formed, funded, and it seems germane to this group as a as part of a core group as opposed to a and I just wanted to remind the community that we set a conversation to see if it bubbles up to a formal institution. Did you have a bill a couple of years ago? It was on, like, s 01/2020 with somebody from UPN Profty Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Is that is this a spin off from that?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: It is related to Yeah. It's

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, you're meant to differ in so way back

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: doing this yesterday. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Would you have a good breakfast tomorrow?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, I think the only thing we could do is I think Charlie is going to be here later, so you can check-in with her in place that issue again. But then we could also but yes, sir. Are we done with this language? Well, not not quite because we have the duties of the council. So we have that issue still in front of us, okay? Duties of the council shall.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I've tried my best to the way that you were given the language was just kind of a strike all of the statute, and I I wish it was that easy from a drafting convention standpoint. So I've gone in and I've gotten rid of any of the tasks that didn't match up with the new tasks or duties for the task force. So you'll see, like, subdivisions one and two and three are entirely repealed. And then I've gone in and and edited the subdivisions that most closely matched the language that you saw yesterday. And so that would start with subdivision four, and instead of identifying and sharing information, it's just sharing information about effective practices regarding sexual violence prevention and response, sexual health education and strategies for mitigating sexual harm and secondary impacts of sexual harm on college campuses in Vermont. You can see the vast majority of that is current law. Exam for subdivision five, instead of identifying campus wide activities, their charge is now to share information about campus wide activities. Subdivision 6 is repealed. And then subdivision seven is amended to instead of creating or promoting annual training, they're sharing information about annual training for college populations. And because they're not creating or promoting that training, that language about having those trainings open to certain folks didn't really make sense. The assistance to the council has been repealed. Their annual reporting requirement has been repealed. Subdivision, I'm on page five, the meetings, subsection F. You know, there was really no legal reason. This is already in a, the council already exists, but because you're doing an overhaul, right, to kind of remind everyone that there's gonna be new folks at the table, I suggested changing, updating that date for the first meeting to worker, and the date that Wendy and Charlie suggested was 11/15/2026. The council is required to select co chairs from among its members, one representing a public post secondary school and one representing a private post secondary school. Instead of meetings quarterly and the council will now meet twice per year, no per diem. Page six.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Can I interrupt just a second? The report section on page five, line seven, etcetera, has been removed. Is that they requested it be removed? Yes. I hate to create an organization that doesn't have any feedback mechanism. But I, you know, I know there's no pretty associated with but I sure would like to know if if we're on a positive trend or negative trend to disregard or Didn't they say they had a problem getting the form? Yeah. Yeah. But that's the whole restructure of the Right. Membership.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Isn't this they'll be set up just for them to be at the much less design that they're sort of the the construct?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Because they're just sharings. Yeah. Surely have them share with us, though. Something, trend, something. Otherwise but for something we back up a sec, we say that fully respect the fact that the group should exist, it should be fortified, but I sure would like to know if they're I'm just wondering if this group could, you know, at least provide advice to the education committees.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Brian, how are you? No. Yeah. I

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: other building is sharing information.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Maybe we could of course, we can invite them in any time. We could remind ourselves to do that by putting something in about them.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, being there should work to the

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: there should a thing. Should have yeah. Or at least a minute for it, you know, like that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think coming in by that, we're really talking about is a check-in, I don't know how to say that. Because it's kind of an optic to put the statue. Do you have any book that I do that math? Well, I'm

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: doing a thought experiment here. And so one question I have for you all is when's the last time you read one of their reports? Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Cool. But when has it ever been submitted?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, that's what my fancy law degree is helping me do right now, is using your website to look at reports submitted and see if I can find the most recent report that was submitted.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, here's the perfect time. There she is.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I did not laugh. Here you go. Here's sun range.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So while Ben was looking, Charlie, you can, so for the record,

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you are.

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Hi, am Charlie Blisserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network of Domestic and Sexual Violence. How can I be helpful?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're there's two little, little, two little discussions about the latest language. The second of the two, which we're just talking about is whether there should be any kind of a report to the legislature. And we're recognizing that the purpose here really seems to be just to get you around the table to share information. Then, but then there was still something we'd like to know, we should know. So your reaction to that? Yes,

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I think your assessment that this is really a table for kind of information and resource sharing is accurate. You know, we are certainly happy to stay in touch with the committee, and I mean, we will either way, on rec any recommendations for policy or administrative changes that come out of that body. Of course, it's a policy decision for you all, but I think that the evolving purpose of the council doesn't necessarily lend itself as best to a report to the legislature on progress. It's really meant as a discussion table.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And then we were discussing, having kind of reached that point in our thinking, we were discussing the possibility of just something to request a check-in with us. Forgot how that's And just trying to figure out how to

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think, I think you have a couple options. All of these are policy options. So I'll note that just searching on the legislature's website, using the search term intercollegiate, the only report I can find is from 2023 and November 2023, so that would have been for the twenty fourth session. So I think I would throw back to you. Do you really need a report from these folks, right? Policy question. One thing that we do, it's not a come to the table check back, but one thing that we could do is we could put a sunset in perspective repeal, which is what Legis Council is trying to do for any kind of standalone council or committee. For example, School Construction Advisory Board sunsets in ten years, and it is a way to force the legislature to review what is going on and make sure that you want to keep that body alive and take proactive action to repeal that sunset. That is a very common tool that we use when we're creating standalone committees or councils or whatever the names are. You can have some session law in here that requires a, you know, a report back in four years, two years, you know, separate from a standing requirement in statute, but it's all a policy decision.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm thinking more like, not forcing them to draft a report, but just meet with the committee.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, when we want to see a written report, we write, submit a written report. And so, if you don't write submit a written report, if you just say report to, then that can be through testimony.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so what, let's think about where we wanted to do that, how often would it make sense to do that? Have you been talking about your work? Two years, everyone here, beginning of every biennium?

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I think the beginning of every biennium is a nice opportunity for that kind of check-in.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yes? Do we have this mechanism for any other standing committee that we create

[Mark Haining, Vermont School Boards Association]: that come in and testify

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: in this committee?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I am, I don't know. I can certainly research that and get back to you. If you don't write written report, you get what you get, and that could be a body showing up and testifying to you. So, I'm happy when I have time to audit Chap Title 16 to see where those reports are and whether they'd be written, but I don't know off the top of my head.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's your excuse. I mean, in

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: So this is the stance I take on a lot of the house bills we get in Senate Judiciary, which tend to have a lot of reports and studies that, you know, in other conversations I'm told aren't actually needed and we can take them out, no problem. And so my point is, if we are curious about the work, why don't we send an email and have them come in? I don't know if I'm oversimplifying it, but we can, I also understand there's a whole lot that goes on and it's easy to lose track of what's happening outside the building, the things that we crave? So it certainly wouldn't hurt for us to internally and at the district if we have sort of running list of the things that we make committees outside of your WBA and, you know, have a checklist of hearing from them however so often.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: When we come and go after two years, we say the two years come back and report to us to a completely different committee. Yeah. And they're, like, saying, who are you? What are you doing? I mean, somehow it's always self justification. Right. Yeah. So I guess the point is if it's important enough that we create session one or create an act, that we should be getting a report about it. Even though there's no money involved, I mean, there really is. Well, think

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you would welcome the opportunity. You don't have recover here from Populous, right?

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I would welcome that, and, you know, if that should be spelled out in policy language, that's the decision for you. We're also happy to stay in touch with this committee and either send or respond to one of those email requests for testimony.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I guess I just I we also sometimes kind of bless and support groups meeting because they need to collaborate and they're dealing with very sensitive topics. I think this is a group that I have trusted in the past to come to a senator or come to a committee when they do feel a change is needed. I don't really need to spell anything out. That would be my vote. I also don't even like to ask for reports because I think what happens is you have turnover, and then other people don't read them because they didn't know they'd I been

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: don't think I think the one thing

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: we really wanna do is handle the reports.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So then my we can't really I don't we're writing down, like, come back and talk to, you know, like, I don't think that's good practice, like policy.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Let's start, let's go to the second issue. The second good space.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Right. Go ahead. Is answer that. Dee Dee Barbic. Know her? Her organization.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: She's been in and out of her a few times.

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I personally do not. I've only been at the Vermont network for a little shy of two years, and so I certainly don't know everyone in the field who's doing really excellent work. So I I think we feel comfortable with the current membership, but I'm also happy to do so

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, just think she may, if she's, if this group is even still active, if she's still active as it has its lead, it may enhance the information sharing. That's it. Full time employee, working on behalf of the state, same issue, why not? That's really my coaching question.

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Okay, I'm more than happy to connect with some of my colleagues who are on the council and get back to you all on that.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Fair enough.

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Sorry, don't have more information to share with you right now.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yep, and to you, you can What are gonna say?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: I was gonna say to Senator Weeks' point, she probably just passed agency that and this DE's office if they want to be part of this and if they can tribute to it. I know sometimes the things that you look at at first glance might seem like it makes sense to put them in and whatever you're doing.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, I get that. I'm not trying to force you to. I'm trying to ask a question if she's been inadvertently omitted. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we'll assume that the agency of education is watching and get their response and then Charlie Gil will check-in with your numbers and you can just send us an email.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, perfect.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That'll help us. We did another list, right? Did we? Yes.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay, good. I've got one. The Holland study thing? Oh,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: yeah, thank you. But we hadn't finished it yet.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I thought that was going on with chronic absenteeism

[Mark Haining, Vermont School Boards Association]: at Right?

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: I keep mixing up the I got confused about that. I didn't forgot. Where

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: are we now? We're Middlesey.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Middlesey. So we're gonna talk about that other I am getting confused too. It's hard for me to I do not have a new draft for you today.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, not we didn't finish the walkthrough, did we? I mean A chronic absenteeism? Yeah. Did we go all the way through?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. I mean, I I think we got through two definitions with me, then

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: you had the agency again.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So, and just so people know this, we got the email today from here at Lafayette about the, actually from Patty, but about medical spirit, about the, the terminology. What is

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it? Propulsion's contract.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, contract. John just said, know, we can raise the, we make sure we're we know exactly what what it means to do it. So we're gonna get John in on Tuesday and along with Eric and just make sure that we I think it's actually the things are not being as simple as we thought it would, but we ought to take a little more testimony just to make sure that we've done exactly what we're doing. So we'll do that on Tuesdays, just trying to wind down. So I think we left off on a chronic absenteeism on page six maybe.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: One other recommendation, if I could. Yep. Can we be a little more directive to the day where you can ask Torin to ask if D. Bartz is still active as opposed to relying on them, somebody picking up on a business? Yes, we can. So it's not a business.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So are switching gears switching to nine thirty two?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Gears. We had some, by the way, I assume we were all We had that one outstanding issue about being an otherwise people that would be amendment? Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Down to just that one. Should be for the proceeding Ms. Smith. Yes?

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I know that I've discussed that he's in harassment and bullying advisory council, and I don't know if the committee is interested in adding that language into either the miscellaneous ad bill or the chronic absenteeism bill, but I just wanted to note that for the committee's consideration.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we, since we're going to not be voting today, why don't you add that into the next draft?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, if I can connect with Charlie to make sure I understand what the right

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: approach

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is, because I don't think I was here for that to go Okay. Through my

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll then do something like that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Right. Okay. Getting warmer on that, so we're gonna now switch to the chronic absenteeism.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Correct.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Am I right left off on page six?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't think we got past page one with me.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Oh, okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: When I was in the chair during the markup, was quite a bit of discussion about the definitions. And I don't think for true markup line by line, like we had wanted to do, I don't think we had gotten past the section eleven twenty. But yesterday when you had the subject matter experts from the field and you touched the whole bill. So, think it's just a matter of how confident you are in the changes that you talked about yesterday, I took notes on all of those, and whether you wanted to kind of go back and comb through everything

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, with not the parts that you've taken notes on.

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Because because you'll see that when we get a draft, when we get a they are the parts where you

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I have no this is

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So my recollection

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: How can I do you best to help? Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: My recollection is that we not through page

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: six with at least enough for the next draft. We're picking up on line 16 on page six.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think that is where you left. That is the red marks I made from yesterday watching from the sidelines. That's where you finished with your witnesses from yesterday. Yeah. And so, if you'd like to pick up there, that's great. Yeah, let's go. Great. I just, I just, if you're talking about I don't think you went over everything in the bill with your witnesses yesterday. I think you, I think AOE was commenting on the SBA's memo, right? And so they didn't touch everything in the bill. And so it's really a matter of where you want to spend your time.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we start there, recognizing that, let me look at the next draft, we'll have to be looked carefully at some sections that we might not have done. So we might not have touched in the first

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Five and a half pages. Okay. At least we get to reschedule.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Unless, Beth, if you cannot remember sections of the week, did the.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would have to look at the SBA's memo Yep. To tell you whether or not they had comments on it.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You know, you're actually, I take back what I said. Let's start at the bottom of page two.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Think we've seen. Kinda done what we can do with the first. Most of the first and second page for the moment. And we're good at explanations. It's helpful to understand why truancy versus absenteeism is even a highlight of the bill. And it's a little convoluted over the phone. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: attendance by children of school age, 31.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. This is your compulsory attendance statute. And so, you've got a change, a term change here. We've now defined parent or guardian, and we're no longer using the term a person having the control of attendables. Some drafting conventions on lines twenty and twenty one, just to how we rush the ages. Moving on to page three. Line four adds the qualifier per medical recommendation for mental or physical inability to attend school. So these are the reasons, these are not excused or unexcused absences. These are the reasons a child who is between the ages of six and 16 doesn't need to be in school.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yep.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Completed tenth grade, is excused by the superintendent or designee, or the head of school for an approved independent school or designee, or is enrolled at college. So really no substantive changes there other than I would posit per medical recommendation is substantive change regarding mentally or physically unable.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So are we comfortable marking off

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: 1.21? So I'm on

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the slide 19 on page two and going through slide 12 on page three of the working out office.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is this the laundry list? No. Oh, now?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. These are the reasons

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Child does not have to be in school, period.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Two. Oh, I see. On page two starting one one two one. Yep. Line 19. Line 19. On page two. Through.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's right.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Page three y 12? Yes.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Are the kind of existing Yeah. List of

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just made as Beth noted and clarified a little bit. But I hope no substantive change is clarifying.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I this is as passed by the house. What I mean, I'm just trying to reflect on the test of what it got and how this could prove it throughout. And I think Representative Chapin was essentially saying medical recommendations are slow and they're hard to afford.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's a different section she was talking about.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Correct. The Yeah. This section, section 11.21, this is a list of reasons the compulsory attendance law would not apply to someone. Right, well it says per medical recommendation. Right. Because they are mentally or physically unable to attend school, that's different than being able to attend school and then being absent from school, which I believe what Rev Chapin was referring to.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: These are kids who simply get

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I see. Okay. Getting

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: it Yeah. It's not has nothing to do with

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just will not be that. Right. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: There a typo or did I forget how to read where it's, line four unable so to attend, or gonna be unable to attend. I

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: think it's just antiquated language that

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So if

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you So do attend. That you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: will so you need them.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Happy to strike so.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Member)]: Thanks. Let's Thanks. Do that. A contribution.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, there we go.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: See what you got for your water. Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So moving on to line 13 on page three, section eleven twenty two. This is also an amendment to a current law statute. And this is this statute is essentially saying that if you are outside the window of the compulsory attendance requirements, so if you are under six or over 16, and you actually enroll in school, you gotta go. So the compulsory attendance requirements would apply to you. And so the changes here, we've got some, we're no longer on line 14 using that person having control. We're using the parent or guardian. This language was just for students over 16, and now there is a substantive change in adding under six as well. So on either side of the compulsory attendance requirement.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Please invite us here to somebody whose child would be at the very youngest age of starting whatever the greatest in size limits without bringing her thinking to that without being in. That's the moment's age.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. So you have to Vermont has a compulsory attendance requirement starting at age six, so not a grade, an age. Right? So if you are five and enrolled in kindergarten, the compulsory attendance laws will apply to you. But if your parents decide not to enroll you in kindergarten until you're six, then the compulsory attendance laws wouldn't apply to you. It's the same with an 16. If you stay in school, then the compulsory attendance requirements are going to apply to you. And if you leave school after 16, law law, current law says that's okay, Or that is legal, I should say.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And if you never registered your child, the state's never announced it.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know the answer to that question. I think that would be a question for the agency.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Are we this looks like it's relatively speaking.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Cleaning up

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: language. Clarify. Are we good to go from that?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: One one two two. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then section, I'm on page four now, line five, section 11.3. This is the section I think you had a lot of discussion about yesterday. The excused absence list. And so my understanding is that the vision you have for the next draft will be we're going to keep the lead in language for subsection A, so the superintendent or head of school may excuse a student's absence for all or part of the school day, and then I will add some language that says something to the effect of in accordance with the model policy requirements, model policy definitions within the model policy, something like that, Yes. Okay. And then I would strike the list. We're gonna get rid of the list. Yes. Correct.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Can I ask one question? Yes. To clarify for some of the advocates in the room. So here on page four, line six, we highlight the superintendent basically adjudicating absenteeism. I'm wondering if if this effort to transform Vermont education and superintendents become they have larger geographic footprints, more schools, maybe a, you know, multiple factor or higher than they are now, consistently responsible for the superintendent or more

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm happy that Sue Segloski of Vermont School Boards Association. I think you have it covered in the language here because it said the superintendent or designee. I just wonder who's road doing now?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Is it all for the superintendents? Or they're a charter people?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think they are currently.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. Yes. It's very

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: just curious. So we that takes us down to the ERV.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Five. Yep. Line nine. And I wrote next to the sec subsection yesterday, keep Does that sound right to you?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. Right. Well, we have something to I think that we decided that was okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This does so subsection A was the list, and subsection B is saying the superintendent or head of school may have also excused the student for pre planned family commitments or activities of which the school has been notified in advance. Pre approved absences shall not exceed ten cumulative school days in each school year. I think you can keep that, and then the model policy will have to comply with this, or you can also take this piece and have it reflected, you know, like all excused absences would be reflected in the model policy. I think that is a policy choice, and I am not the one who has to write the model policy or execute it, but I just wanted to point out that subsection B is also a reason for an excused absence, and just for consistency's sake, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to confirm that that is what you wanted.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So that's interesting because what you're kind of saying is that it's almost just another one on the list with a different

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's one that's one way to read it. Although this does have a separate tie in on lines fourteen and fifteen. Right? Pre approved absences shall not exceed ten cumulative school days for each school year.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What do people like to I'm okay to shift you into a model policy, but I don't wanna create a gap. I mean, now when the model policy is finished, then it's blah blah less.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, my understanding is schools are already having to do this, right? This is all, you're making changes to a chapter of current law, and so right now, current law says superintendent Let's see.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, I see the part that's struck out.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. So, if we go all the way back to page four, the superintendent makes use in writing any student from attending the school for a definite time, but for not more than ten consecutive school days and only for emergencies or for absence from town. So, that's what we have to work with now. And then that same that that language on page five for elementary school, an excuse in writing student for from attending more than one hundred and seventy five days, which is not really reflective in the new language. Folks are already having to grapple with this without small policy. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think consensus is that we're actually going to, we're doing the opposite. Or move this into into a And public then Citi?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's just, it's a May, so the superintendent or head of school may require justification for an absence. Doctor. Schnapp? Proof of your driving test, you know, whatever whatever that is. The may, not a shall.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Trustee. That would be correct.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'm a shall. I don't know why this wouldn't be standard practice. Do you really do that? Mean, sometimes it's a verbal blanket. Goes in and says, oh, it doesn't mean it's written. 54. Just says plus for justification. Nothing written, nothing. It's it's a it's a look him in the eye, ask for justification. We're trying to, I don't know, it's just my gut feeling. If we're trying to, we really do have a chronic absenteeism problem. The May seems a little fluffy and we're in a scenario where we're a little more. And a little more direct. That's just my gut feeling. I come from a different background.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, I think what this was intended to do was just make clear that the superintendent was that he has the authority to.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's imperative. Anyway, that's just my feeling. Be able to live. I've been dying to help.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So then you go on the model policy. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You can certainly add language that the I'm gonna the model policy section's gonna look very different when it comes back, and so you could certainly add a line in there that says model policy without guidance on when superintendents may need to request certification during absence of them. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we're we're actually gonna shift gears to Julia and

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: As a for for a little while and then pick back up on this. So so we can pick up on page five.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We're good to the bottom of four now.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're well, to the till till we get to line you want to get to line 17. That's of five. Yes, on page five. So And

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I guess I was did we decide five is to look at on page five? Did we decide to delete that after you guys leave the conversation, or is that the same? Incidents of hazing harassment would be decided to complete?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, that's gonna be part of the law of policy. Okay. The list will not be here. Okay. Okay. Julian, that's what I'm gonna do.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll just sit to the side.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Both do yeah. Do it. However you wanna do it.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Now this is

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: nine

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: page five.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We're on the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, we're going to the Yeah. To the Oops. And

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Sure. Or directly that you're holding, going to fiscal office. It looks like you all have copies of the fiscal notes, I won't put it on the screen. Is that okay? Yeah. Alright. So, we were on section two. If you recall, we had skipped ahead to the school construction sections with Julia, and then we were going to go back to the first few sections, which I worked on.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: That's

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: right. We took really good start. That's what happened. That's right. Yep.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: All right. So starting with section two, which big picture, that would amend statute to replace boards of cooperative education services, or BOCES, with your new term, the cooperative educational service areas, or seesaws. And so, essentially, a Seesha would be a group of supervisory unions, and the intent language is to provide members with shared programs and services. This create the section would create seven CESAs in statute, and it would name the member SUs. And so the SUs would be mandated to join the CESA, but the using the services of the CISA facility voluntary by the supervisor union. Initially, the CISA staff would just include the executive director who reports to the board of the CISA. One of the reasons that we flag that the total fiscal impact of this section is unclear is we don't know how many staff members in total a CISA will employ. It depends on the number of services or programs that they offer, how they structure those services and programs, and what sort of staff they may or may not need to hire for that. And so it's unclear how money saved, if that will save money, and how much will we save versus the cost of onboarding any new resources or personnel to accomplish those new grants. So that's why we have an unclear risk of impact about section three.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. This is actually a question probably for Bennington.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Now, as the SUs put in thoughts on, it says, because it's optional for an SU to they have to be part of it, but they're not I got to be as part of it, but you don't have to use any of the services. Has has has the has there been communication between all of you to say this is a good thing? We're probably gonna take advantage of it, or has it even been discussed?

[Mark Haining, Vermont School Boards Association]: For record, Mark Haining, Vermont School Board Association, Will and I discussed, the ideas that you would once this obtained, you might say, we do need this. If there's not anything that you need from the cafeteria menu that you might have with possible services, then we're we're good on this. But the idea the hope is that as it goes forward, it's like, oh, we don't need to hire our own person to do this. We could Alright. Use this contract.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Or if

[Mark Haining, Vermont School Boards Association]: we can't find a person, we could use this contract.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Alright. Thank you, Matt. So alright. So that's section two. Gonna skip ahead to section four, which is the CSIS startup grant program. So and this one would be effective sorry. Both of them are effective 07/01/2026. So section two and section three. Section four would amend Act 01/1960 eight's BOCES grant program, so that the CSOs, which are effectively replacing BOCES, would be eligible to receive these startup grants. So each CISA could receive a grant from the agency of education equal to $15,000 and this could help offset some of the CISA's initial startup costs. So initially, fiscal year twenty twenty five, about $60,000 was no. I'm sorry. Dollars 70,000 in fiscal year twenty twenty five was appropriated to the agency of education from the education fund for the startup grants when they were proposed. So now, this is amending it to CESAs and 60,000 remains. In addition, this section would amend the budget so that 30,000 from the general fund would be put towards this. So essentially, it would be telling the Agency of Education to use $30,000 of their ed transformation dollars to help issue these grants. That's how you get 15,000 per seats.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Do we have any data on the one OC that did stand up with their start up costs worth or what we gave them up and what they utilized?

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So all I can I can add, I think that'd be a great question for the CISA themselves? They did apply for this grant, which is why there are now $60,000 left rather than the initial $70,000 We have that, so yeah, that's all I'm say. That's all I'm able able to say. But

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: everybody's done it. Much more.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So, yeah, so that's section four. So all of that would be available in fiscal year twenty twenty seven for the state. So so that's a total of 90,060 plus $70.30. So think I'll skip ahead to section 13 here. So, this is the Union School District Study Committee section. So this would set out the process for establishing study committees to explore forming unified union school districts. I'll just say union district for the rest of this section to try and shorten it up a little bit. So this process would start 10/01/2026, and would run through 11/07/2028, following all steps of it. So essentially, beginning October 2026, the Vermont, let's see, the Vermont Learning Collaborative, is that the acronym? PTLC, Vermont Learning Collaborative, would be required. And sorry, let me back up. PTLC is your one current CSUB. They started out as a OC, then they are now a CSO, so they're currently in the system. So they would be required to hire eight individuals to serve as Union District facilitators, so they would be charged with organizing the school districts into study committees to explore forming these union districts for the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: sorry.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So so the CISOs, the membership of the CISOs are set out already in this. The Union District Study Committee is a facilitator selecting a group of school districts and putting them in a separate committee to study forming a union district.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So this is totally separate.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: No, not exactly. So the census are a shared Yes. This is shared services. Yes. The union district would be districts talking about forming a brand new union district. So this is just a committee to facilitate current law districts talking amongst themselves if they want to form a union district, if some of them want to, if no one wants to. This is separate from the CEASA, so this is union districts. Yes. Yep, got it. Very funny. I hope you enjoy that. So will have some funding that comes a little later on, so I can flag that for you when we get there. So, yeah. So they're going to be doing the facilitators are gonna be doing that work and putting together the member districts. There is some guidance contained in the bill for the membership of each of those districts. So there would be 21 study committee, union district study committees. Essentially, each committee would have, from 12/01/2026 to 12/01/2027, to complete a report outlining whether or not they found it advisable to form a union district, they have about a year to formally do that work with the facilitator. So moving ahead to 02/01/2027, the Agency of Education with these eight individuals of facilitated input would submit a report to the House Committees on Education, Ways and Means, and then the Senate Committee on Education and Finance. And this report would detail the current membership and status of the study committee. That's letting the general assembly know how the work is progressing. Overall, the total fiscal impact of this is unclear, because it's leading it up to these committees to decide if they would or would not like to form a union district, so we aren't able to tell you the costs because we don't know what they're going to decide.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So what authority do they have? They can do this right now. Is this in law or at least? So I talked to the of

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: the Legis Council about authority in law.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Betsy James, author of Legislative Council, Yes. These school districts are being asked to follow current law as amended by the bill. Current law does not require anyone to get together, but the process once folks do get together to just have formation at the Union School District is current along. Alright,

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: so I'll

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: move on now to section 17, and this talks about the funding that's available for this, Senator Williams was asking about. So section 17, which will be effective on 07/01/2026, this would create grants to be administered by the agency of education to assist the study committees. So, essentially, each of those study committees would be eligible for up to $10,000 in reimbursement grants that the Agency of Education would issue. So that's a total of 210,000 of the 21 different committees. And so this funding would come from a general fund appropriation that has been given to the agency of education for a transformation work. The budget this bill would amend the budget to direct the agency to use those funds for these governments. So this is money appropriate, Disappointment. Yeah. So the 2027 budget would direct the Agency of Education to use these funds that they were appropriated fiscal year twenty twenty six for these grants. Yeah, this is Yeah, well, that's all I'll say on it. I believe it's a reimbursement, so the committee will do work and be reimbursed, I believe, one half up front, and then the second half after they've submitted their final work awards up to that $10,000

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So this section, section 17, also includes a so Beth, final work, how what is that? Does that simply say either we decided it does not make sense for us to learn or does it say we're gonna continue to work on it?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which final report?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Each study committee will be able to go broken.

[Charlie Blisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: What page are you on?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, I guess on page four of the

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, you're on the fifth bill there?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just on the fifth bill.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What section of the bill?

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Section 17, they report that the study committees need to report on to get the remainder of their reimbursement.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh. I'm gonna be far

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: in the process they're supposed to be by

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: the time they issue a report.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So they're done. The study committee's work is done. They have either decided they're not going to recommend forming a study committee and they've reported their final Yep. Or, I'm sorry, recommend forming a union school district. Or they are recommending forming a union school district and the study committee's work is done in that they have to issue their report with their proposed articles of agreement, but then they have to follow the report to the agency and to the state board, and then there would be a vote on whether or not to form the Union School District. But the report would be coming out before those final steps.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the report would simply say yes, if they send some of them to pursue?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: H950 current law requires certain things to be in the report and nine fifty five requires more things to be in the report. And if the recommendation is that it is advisable to form a union school district, they also need to have proposed articles of agreement.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're just going through this, I understand, so I'm not getting into this, that sounds like a lot more than $10,000 to get to this.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They are getting a facilitator as well. The facilitators pay for separately.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Fair enough. Yep. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. And the law this language is specific that if you need more than the facilitator and the $10, then you can revert to current law, is coming out of your own school district budget.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But yeah, ultimately how much you give these study committees to be a policy.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Alright, so moving on to those facilitators that Beth just referenced. So H-nine 55 would also direct the Agency of Education to issue a grant to the VTLC to hire those facilitators. So the grant would be equal to $442,000 to hire those eight individuals, and also 32,000 of that could be retained by VTLC to cover their administrative costs of managing these eight facilitators and whatever else would be entailed with that.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: What is the mechanism? I mean, do the districts know that they have to do that? That they have the option to do it? I'm sorry, I don't understand. We're telling them that they're gonna be doing study committees, that they have a certain time, a certain long way to do it. Do they already know that?

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: I can't answer that. Good question.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Is your question for the obligated students or this No. I want to. How are we making sure that they know what they're doing?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The same way that any there's nothing specifically in here about publicizing. So it's the same assumption that we're making about every law you pass, and that is folks are paying attention and are going to follow the laws. Right? So there's all kinds of different folks watching your work and the bills that are coming out of this body who will be working with their different trade organizations.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And their superintendents. Superintendents will be talking to each other.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And BTLC is gonna, is required to hire those facilitators who are then required to put folks on study committees. So someone's gonna come knocking at some point. Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: All right, and then finally, the last bit here of section 17 would also create CISA executive director grants. So these grants would each be equal to $50,000 and would be awarded by the Agency of Education to six of the CESAs within this bill. BTLC would not be eligible because they have already been formed prior to this act, So this would be $300,000 in total grants, and this would again be using funds previously appropriated through Act 73 to the Agency of Education, and you are amending through the budget of, in section C 103, are amending how that money shall be prescribed for the agency. So the total impact of this section would be a net neutral shift of $952,000 general fund appropriated in fiscal year twenty twenty six, so by directing the agency to use those funds for these purposes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Again, just for clarity, Vince. We're on topics, swirling around. BTLC is a current policy, correct? Yes. BTLC was created for a subset of districts to bond together for business purposes. What if they want, like, their footprint? Guess what I'm asking is are they are they represented on the map now for the seven POCs as a unique and and established POC seesaw? Yes. So, VGLC is included in in this bill and their members are included. Can they expand? Do they have a mechanism to expand?

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: I don't know.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Because it kind of set that the

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The H-nine 55 is passed by the House that's dethawed membership in statute and very specifically set the membership for VTLC as its current membership. It's currently Just curious,

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: does anybody have a map with the seller? Andy?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It should be on your web page.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I just want to clarify that the VTLC was a BOCE, it's a current BOCE, but it simply recognizes the current boundaries of that one BOCE.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Alright, so that's section 17. So section 18 would amend effective dates and contingencies for some of Act 70 three's sections. I believe that there is a timeline in the back, in the appendices, that would probably be Yeah, so that would be the best place to direct you all to read through all the different sections and how their effective dates are being changed, if they're being changed. So just flagging for you to check that. Section 21 would mandate several reports on pre K education. And so that would involve the agency of education, DCF, building bright futures. So just to touch on that, there's nothing specific that the community's interested in. I'll just flag that within section 21, this section would appropriate $75,000 from the general fund to JFO in fiscal year twenty twenty seven to hire a contractor to provide a cost of care analysis or pre K.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the JFO section has $75,000 of pension.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: And if you turn to the table towards the beginning of the fiscal note, you will see that 75,000 is kind of on its own as the single new appropriation. The rest of the dollars in that table are current appropriations that are being redirected to this point, so you'll see that on the table here in the specific topics.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Beth, what is a cost of care analysis? What is the cost of care for terminology mean?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure that I am the best person to answer that question. Is that a J?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is that a sample question?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If we're gonna go deep in Julie, to your JFO. I think if we're gonna go deep into this analysis and this contract, I'd like to bring in our colleague, Ted Barnett, who works most closely on pre K and he could talk through what exactly a cost of care analysis would entail.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, we'll worry about it later. I'll just curious about what the terminology, okay?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It a term of art within the pre date place, and I'm just not prepared to talk Okay, about

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: well, fair enough.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: All right, so Section 22, effective July 1, this would require each student who's receiving tuition for their public education to complete forms used to collect information on all weighting categories. So essentially, this is just a data collection. Flagging this just because while we can't estimate the fiscal impact of this section, it may or may not result in additional student weighting data being brought in, which in the case of the foundation formula, that would be an increase in your education payments in EOP. In the current law, that not be a new cost, but that would be shifting taxing capacity. If you increase the number of weighted students at one district, that would just shift the tax burden across the state. Just flagging that, that's a known, So skipping ahead to section 24, just flagging that its effect is 07/01/2030, and it's also a contingency effective, but this would prohibit any school that receives tuition from charging any other tuition or fees from a tuition student. So again, fiscal impact of this section is unclear, and if a receiving school or school district decides to increase its tuition because they can't charge any fees or additional side tuitions, this could result in an increase in your overall education spending if they need to increase the tuition in absence of charging a new fee.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This would should recall we got one email about this section. They took a sincere and estimate date. Section 25.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Alright. So this would increase effective 07/01/2026. This would increase the threshold of a Union District Study Committee's budget before your voter voter approval is needed. So under current law, if a committee budget exceeds $50,000 it must be approved by the member district's voters. This will now change that threshold to $500,000

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Study committee. Yeah. And District study committee.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Yeah, so the fiscal impact of this is unclear, but essentially, a study committee is like one of the study committees studying this union district, because of this, sets its budget at 100,000 rather than 50,000, this doesn't trigger a vote by their member districts. But under current law, above 50,000 would trigger a vote by the member districts' voters. So just why

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so remember that we had that testimony from Jackie Wilson and a couple other people about fact that the real work gets done before the government and this bill has in addition to the facilitator has $10,000 bills but happens to the society spent more than that deciding you want to have it for working.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So is the trigger specific to the study committee for the Union District?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: it's a $500,000

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm sorry. What section are you on?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Twenty four twenty five. Alright. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is section 25 I'm sorry. Did you want me to I just started. Take control as soon

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you can.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: A lot of these questions are best directed to lunch counsel. Ezra, are you cool with the answer? Okay. Section 25 is amending section seven zero seven, which is the study committee budget. Current law requires a study committee to get approval of the electorate if they are going to spend more than $50,000 to fund the study committee. And all Section 25 does is raise that threshold at which they need to decoder approval from 50,000 to 500,000. No one gets any money from this section. It's not appropriation or a grant. It's just the setting the threshold at which a union school district study committee would need to seek and get voter approval for a budget.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So, section 26, your small and smart school rule making. That would require State Board of Education to update its education quality standards to define the criteria for schools to be considered small or sparse by necessity. And I flag this because I'm sure you all will remember, whenever I come in here and talk to the committee about the foundation formula, I always have a little asterisk saying undefined, or we use this proxy. So small by necessity and sparse by necessity are used for your school support grants under Act 70 three's foundation formula. As that hasn't been defined, whenever we do our modeling, we have to use a prophecy, and it won't be the same thing as whatever the final rule is, which will result in analysis needs to be updated. This is the flag that this is where that rule making comes into play. Now, we've been alluding to the last, I guess, two sessions whenever I come in here saying, Is this Asterix? We don't feel well. So, that's the flag for this. And so, your rulemaking would be due back, it looks like, by 03/31/2024, this happened. So, fiscal impact is unknown, because we don't know what that rulemaking will be. And then sections twenty eight and twenty nine, I'll just get down to those. That is still talking about the small schools and sparse schools, but essentially this would repeal the language in Act 73 for your small sparse schools. And then this section would reintroduce that with some changes and the reason that stuff would best be explained by the Legis Council, because I think that's a legal fiscal impact, but again, we can't estimate the fiscal impact of these sections because we still need the State Board of Education to do that rulemaking, and then the Agency of Education will actually be implementing. Don't know how that would be, so just flagging that for you all. I think that that brings us up to the sections essentially where we step into the tax territory, And if there are any sections I skipped over that the committee would have to go back to, let me know, otherwise, that's what I have.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I just wanna make a note of this on your summary, which I appreciate. Where is the tax, which section is the first tax section?

[Vince, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So I have section 30. 30. 30 through 57 is your Regional Assessment Districts, so that's where my tax line is.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we take a short break? Bill two forty. So the brain, then we'll go pick back up where we left.