Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good afternoon. This is the Southern Education Committee during the afternoon of April 30. Apologize to everybody for starting half an hour late. It's all around long time. It's not gonna be getting thrown on. Long term. But we're starting off today Rick Sibel, Minnesota Council. Looking at a new draft of of age six fifty. So, it's about I think this take one second and X. Feel like the iteration. Yeah. Patient started out the third starting at the technical. So, but we have a new draft? We do. And off we go.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon. Brian Rick Siegel with the Office of the Legislative Council. I'll share my screen so we can all look at the same bill that I'm walking through, or amendment. So we have draft 1.2 of h six fifty. This would be a strike all committee event to h six fifty as it came from the house. Maybe a little refresher, mister chair, what the house bill was. Would that be helpful? Or Yeah. And it's not sub these are not we're not rewriting six fifty, although it even does strike all. I just I think it's easier for this bill to afford it to be a strike. I'll explain why. So six fifty is a game from the house. Would require ed tech providers to register for the state, and no enforcement, just register, so we know you're doing business here. The second section of the bill required AOB to study on should we certify these products and how should that be done. So AOE would be tasked with a study, bringing stakeholders, how should we certify, should we, number one, certify these products for use, And if we do, how should that look? And should that be a requirement before NTec can be used in the classroom? That was as passed by the house. So what you're looking at here has been changes. Note you changed to page one. So take the page two. There is still this registration requirement. A couple of changed definitions I wanna go over. The definition of educational technology products has been adjusted a little bit, So the previous definition, I haven't word any highlighted, because right after any was the phrase student facing. So the definition would have been limited to software websites, you know, that are student facing, whatever that world looks like, okay? There was discussion about also applying it to teacher tools. So in this case, any product would include software used to transfer student data, and that uses for teaching and learning, So that, conceivably, we could bring in some teaching tools that they use for grading and other other purposes that the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: teacher could do. So, you're right. So this means then that anything a teacher is using, even for their learning purposes? If it's

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: for teaching and learning. Right. In the classroom. In the school. In the school.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Not at all. In the school. Yeah.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And presumably that tool could also be used in school, that may be a blurry line. That's the first change. Number two, no change in filing. So number three, the changed school being highlighted is that previously said school or school district. What I've done to kind of clean up the bill is school includes school districts. So where you see the term school, that also includes school districts, take testimony is not appropriate or not, but I think it makes the bill easier. And so you see school now including the definition of school district. That's the highlight portion on lines 13. Line 14 is a new definition. It is the 16, the major, you know, section 11 definition of school district, cross reference there, because we're not in Title 16. So because we're not in Title 16, I don't want to just assume that people know what that term means. If you use school district Title 16, it has to

[Senator Nader Hashim]: be defined that way, has to

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be used that way, but I'm using a cross reference there to ensure that it's accepted. Okay. No change to the mandatory data reporting, subsection B, It was that intro subsection. Then on to page three of the status enlist. No change number one, these are the registration requirements of an ed tech provider that is doing business in the state must register up to the state as such. They must provide their name, email, that didn't change. Number two, a link to their most recent version of their privacy policy. And the highlight is in a school because the that phrase was added in this amendment. So previously, it stopped at each product in use. So this narrows it a little bit, and maybe matches the definition of an EdTech provider, because they must provide a product in the school, right? So you have some language action up there. Three, added the word paid. So previously, the language was sure. Let's write here three, operating pursuant to a contract. So now it's to a paid contract. So, conceivably, I guess you could have a contract where there's no payment between the school and the ed tech provider. This would limit it to just contracts where the ed tech provider is paid. We offer that service. No change to four or five or six, so they still must describe the product, which product are known to be in use in any standard, and then they must attest that their product meets existing privacy laws in this state and in the federal government. Any questions about those registration page? No.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Have. What page are you on?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm on page three

[Senator Nader Hashim]: of the graph. Yeah, want

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: to make sure I'm not. Are you down to the enforcement? Oh, yeah. Not yet.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's going up. Yep. Okay. So subsection c is new. Previously, they were down enforcement to the registration. So in other words of business, if they did register, they're a fee that will to them if, you know, damages. They don't have to pay anything or they would just not register. So you have enforcement language added that puts this requirement to register under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, which is where a lot of privacy laws eventually get gathered into. So this sec this section entirely new? Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It's Okay.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's language that appears elsewhere on top of it, but this is new to this bill. Yes. The source, the prodigal language. So that can't discuss language that says Houston bills, but I can Thank you. Sure. So section two, so you have one, that a person that violates provision is an unfair and set track in commerce. That is the Vermont Consumer Protection Act. Number two, the AG has the same authority to adopt rules, so to navigate rulemaking, implement the provisions of the subchapter and to conduct civil litigations, enter into assurances of discontinuance, and subdivision three coming out for any civil action pursuant to the particular society of acts. In a little bit

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: If I could. Page three, line 19, section 2,453. You may have just said it, but what is 2,453?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it's the Vermont's Critical Consumer Protection Act provision that says if you create something that is a deceptive act of commerce, it violates the Consumer Protection Act, to reference that specific section for you to that.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: continuing to page four. And I do wanna say, little bit here, this is, we're talking about registration, it's not the topic for a enforcement to be tied to registration. If a company was registered, you know, AG enforcing some type of consumer protection is not typical. Doesn't mean you can't do it, but it's a little bit of an outlier to have that type of enforcement instead of dependency, right? That's typically, you'd have a penalty and a certain amount of money for not registering that the age you

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: would use. Now that an initiated civil action against the person pursuant to the sub deputy, clarify that a little more?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, yeah, we're on three a, on page four, right? Mhmm. Okay. Line 12. So the Consumer Protection Act gives the agency the authority to bring civil action Amongst other things, to adopt rules, civil actions, investigations, right? It gives them that kind of blanket enforcing mechanism. What three a is doing is kind of narrow that, to say, before you bring a civil act, before you bring them to court, you write them a letter saying that we believe you violated this, you haven't registered in this case. Please register in sixty days. You have a cure period of sixty days. If they register within sixty days, there's no there's no violation. So subdivision b, if they do not cure, which in this case is a registration, then the AG could register and could sue the business. You know what,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I hate to do this, but I think we need Senator Hashim in the room for this section. And it doesn't make sense to go forward without him being here. Let's see. I know he just said he might He'd be able to grab the same insurance. Jump in.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, there's more. There's things unrelated.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, let's see what okay. Yeah, so let's go

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to section Section three, two.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: New

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: language, new idea. This did not come over from the House. So this would be a five year prohibition on chatbots in schools. And we define chatbots later in the section. So subject to subsection b, which is important, no school shall allow students to use a chatbot for teaching and learning purposes until 06/30/2031, so roughly five years. If an exception to that, a school principal or head of school shall have the sole authority to grant an exception to the provision, provided that the chatbot is strictly used for educational purposes. The principal or head of school shall track any and all exceptions made pursuant to the subsection and provide a list of exceptions to the Agency of Education upon request. The list shall be the name of the provider of the Chatbot, along with an explanation of the educational purposes of the Chatbot. So you're giving that principal head of school the sole authority, as long as it's strictly educational use, which is somewhat subjective. One may disagree with another on what educational purposes. However, they all must include this list. That includes the name of the chatbot and the reason explanation for the exception.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So I'll run the record as saying I I would oppose this section. I think this is the purpose of the working group, is to determine which tools are or are not appropriate for the for inclusion schools for academic programs. They may very well deduce that chatbots have absolutely no place where we have some kind of limitation. They're putting it in, it's we have a bad habit of putting requesting a study, but putting a lot of putting solution to the legislation before the study is ever delivered.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll also go over the definitions, so everyone can see them. A chatbot is any artificial intelligence, algorithmic, or automated system that generates information via text, audio, image, or video in a manner that simulates interpersonal interactions or conversation. This is a new area, not just a blog, but in tech, so states are still kind of grappling with how to define a chatbot. This definition appears to be a, one that is proposed in various ways, so having to entertain a change to that definition is certainly a proposal that you all can talk about. Definition of school is a cross reference to Title 16, which includes independent schools. And then the notice is the AOE must apply notice of these provisions to all schools and if necessary provide support to a school and implemented these provisions on or before 08/01/2026.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I guess we should go back now and pick up waited for Senator Hashim to Sorry. I told I hope for my For a sandwich. Well, So go back to page three. Right? And, yeah, and I'll maybe give

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this a little background. So we're talking about the registration of EdTech. Language being adjusted a little bit as far as too much register, the definition changing. I think the purpose that you may be able to provide some, testimony on this thing are not testimony comments off this enforcement. So what this amendment would do is, basically allow the AG, if a business is not registered, who thinks the definition of that tech provider, the AG would be able to enforce that either through a lawsuit or some type of warning, like, to, we think you are operating in Vermont, however, you have not registered as an anti provider. It falls under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, which gives the AG authority to conduct civil investigations, bring civil action, and so forth. The important language is on page four, the three a and three b, that there's a cure period of sixty days where the AG would have to write notice to the ad tech provider, giving them sixty days to basically make sure to avoid a lawsuit. And they didn't do that if the AG Gazette route to enforcement at the corporate.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Is this similar to what was in page eight sixteen, or is that private right of act? Husband does it, civil right of act?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What's the bill number? Eight sixteen. Eight sixteen. I don't have that bill, but this would be it's totally civil. There's no no proof of law enforcement error.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Eight sixteen was a private right of action. This that can for an individual sue rather than the AG, I believe. And some of the language is looking very similar. Okay. I'm just wondering if this is copied and pasted from eight sixteen for whatever reason. So this is

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: what you're seeing, the not three and three b, that's unique, but one and two are almost verbatim of what you find in the Promptness Protection Act in Title IX, which I mentioned before you came in. It's a little strange to have this connected to registration. Typically, it's you do something that harms the consumer directly. You sell a car that is a lemon, you sell a dishwasher that explodes, right? These are consumer harms that consumers have to write to the courtroom. So the registration piece is unique, but it's the same language that allows aging enforcement, I think, similar to the past.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Aging enforcement just against failing to read this. Right.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And it's only the AHE that can do it?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, no, this would also involve consumers, and we would need to discuss AG-one 111, the consumer right to action. This just limits the AHE right to action. The consumer, they would have to show damages. That's, and that's, you know, what's the damage to a consumer or business outreach training, there is a damage. But it doesn't block the consumer ride, so that's something to balance.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Having this in here doesn't block the victim? Correct. Correct.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, they basically said anybody, so anybody, correct? Well, so you have to show damages in this section, and my point is that what's the consumer going to show, Seth? What's their harm for a company not registered? That's gonna be hard for the company. But the DAG could say, Because the Consumer Protection Act, we believe there's a safe violation by our work period, and we want you to make sure.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And we heard testimony from that that's a medical issue. Doctor. That assumed that actually the use of electronic devices had made us dumber. Could they, there be a use in this, be a class action package consumed? I don't I'm not kidding.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's a pure, and I can say

[Senator Nader Hashim]: that confidently and normally can't,

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: but because it's just stripping registration, what's the damage? Okay. And that's why I said you maybe consider a penalty for me. That, to me, makes more sense, if you're be the Consumer Protection Act. As you say, you know, register is $10,000 worth, the penalty is, right? That, me, makes more sense than a agent enforcement of the consumer protectionist. I hope you all can determine what you, how do you want to it, if you want to enforce it at all, right? So the house brought you a bill with no unfair. What did you say makes more sense? A penalty. Again, as far as legally, the AG, I'd wanna hear from the AG, right, what they prefer. But to me, the point is to get companies registered. They're doing business here, the Secretary of State, if you don't register, there could be a violation of your in Vermont, but you're not registered as a foreign jurisdiction, or you're not labeled as a corporation. There could be a separate violation there, right? Here, we are in the world of ed tech, and you're saying that a business that is operating in Vermont that has a product that is being used at school is not registered as an EdTech provider. So what does that violation look like? What should that be?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: So when businesses register or have to renew their registration, if they lapse on it and their license is suspended and, you know, whatever whatever license or registration they have, they have to pay a reinstatement fee. And so I don't know why there would be a AG action on something that seems similar. Because what what I'm understanding, the question is these businesses that are operating in Vermont with their EdTech products, they have to register. Right? Right. And in order to use your products in Vermont, you have to be registered. Right? In order to use? In order for their products to be sold, you have to be to be sold or utilized by in whatever district.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Like in the spill or just in general?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Generally speaking.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I if you do business in Vermont, let's say you're a Delaware corporation, right? You should theoretically have, say, either DBA or BBB or insurance in foreign business in Vermont. How many do it? I don't know. But, yeah, you're supposed to if if you have this NIPA bond, you're supposed to register as a entity with an agent that you can serve papers to if that company buys the bond. So

[Senator Nader Hashim]: so then I I mean, I think I guess, why is there a bifurcation between AI and tech products versus all other businesses? I mean, I'm all for regulating AI technology in schools, but

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Probably on a push for bank.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Right. So, I mean, and I I think that is that there is an extremely fair question because I don't know that a registry gets us a significant benefit. I've told the house, you know, I I'm not sold on the registry. Their their goal with the registry is to have a better sense of what products are being used in our schools. And that for consumer for consumers to have agency, there has to be and and I'd actually love if if we want to pull up the California data broker registry. I basically tried to say to everyone, we should just people should just look at this registry to get any and all useful information about the companies that operate in the country, what kind of information they collect, and who they sell it to or transmit it to, which the California one is beautifully done and shows you the five sixty six data brokers that have registered with the state. What California can then do is delete your data from those, which I think is also a challenge, and we're dealing with that in economic development. But the goal of the house with the registry is so that they know the universe of products being used at the school. If a parent goes to a district and says, why was my kid on this app? And the school says, I don't know, or we have a contract with them, or, you know, we have you know, then the parent has more agency to know, did the school authorize the use of this product? How else did they get access to it? Is it considered an educational tool that's efficacious for learning, etcetera. They think they eventually want the registry to point to better policy of the future. That's the best I can say about it. I I do struggle with the registry, but if you pull up the California data broker registry, I think you'll see that other states are also starting to approach really useful consumer databases that we are not here yet with our Secretary of State of the. I think the bigger question is how do we get it? There should be no products in schools that are using that have advertising. There should be, you know, relatively limited use of chatbots. Well, those are a new social interaction that we're having in society. You know, there's I think we added other pieces of the bill, frankly, that I think matter more. The house wants this registry, and I just tried to fix some of the language in the registry so that it actually get us the information we might want for future policy.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So yes. I'd like to

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: go back to the plain old opt out. Parents that wanna opt out, kids have an access to a need. So So why can't we put that in?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, I mean, I don't know if that gets into education policy. I I do believe, like, for most technology schools, a parent can opt out. That I mean, that's kind of outside of the scope of this bill. We have a working group in here to spend the next six months coming back with policies that say, what is age appropriate? At a certain age at a certain age, the most appropriate thing is no exchange at all. At a certain age, you know, they they're teaching kids how to type and use, like, math programs or whatever. We're gonna try and get into all those details. If you want to put a van and opt out for kids to use any screens at all in school, I'd be fine with that. I do think that's a bigger education policy that's probably addressed in what parents can ask for now.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So if we don't have problem that they can do it, they can.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Why don't we, because we're we're almost out of time. So why don't we finish the five? You're done section. One, we've done section two. Now before

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: we're on three, something like that.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just finish two, just finish two. Through the chat bot. Okay. Section three. So the house pass version had an AOB study that was able to look at the certification of EdTech products, using the registry as part of its work. This has been revamped. It is now a legislative working group, so not AOE, just legislators, that would be tasked with studying the use of ed tech and providing a recommendation through draft legislation on how it should certify each department. Membership, starting now on page six, three members of the House by the Speaker, not all from the same party, and three members of the Senate, not all from the same party appointed by a competing base. So six members. Powers and duties, the working group, in consultation with AOB, the Vermont Superintendent's Association, and the Vermont Independent School Association shall study and make recommendations regarding the certification process or the use of ed tech products in Vermont schools. So some of this is in the house language, but I also had to rework it because it's a different look at how Fantech would would be regulated, and this would be draft legislation. We're not talking about a study, but a report. We're talking about a bill that somebody in my office, Nader,

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: would draft.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the working group one shall, in consultation with superintendents, create a list of educational tech products in use across the state. Interview stakeholders, including teachers and children's privacy advocates, to determine the benefits and harms of these ed tech products in classrooms. Three, determine what criteria to use when evaluating products or certification. Four, determine which state entities will be charged with the certification process and what extent. Five, recommend whether any third party services should be utilized to assist in certification. For the assistance, it would be list of counsel and JFO in case any financial issues can come up in that work. And in subsection E, the proposed legislation, on or before December 30, the working group should submit its findings and recommendations in the form of proposed legislation to House Commerce, House Ed, Senate Economic Development, and Senate Education. Then you have obedience language per standard, first meeting on for August 15. There would be co chairs, one from the house, one from the senate. They shall seek to exist on 01/15/2027, and the standard per diem language would be limited to six meetings coming out of the General Assembly's budget. One more change, one more, sorry, section. Is the Bills' Exempt January, or sorry, July '6, they accept for the enforcement mechanism. So that enforcement mechanism, back to the registration piece, there'd be a two year delay. So there wouldn't be any enforcement to give time for EdTech products to for riders to register for the state, give them two years to learn that Vermont now requires this registration.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Questions, working group, was the composition of legislators only part of the House Bill's opinion? So the House Bill had the AOB doing the study on their own, and this is a brand new Yeah, I'll offer to the committee that I'm not a big fan of I don't think we have six legislators who are IT subject matter experts to handle a topic like this.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: There are there are other reasons that you jumped up legislators, you know, that given that the the budget has passed and where there's no other agency that has said they will staff it. So the only way to have ledge council staff it is to have it only be composed of legislators and then just bring in the expertise you need.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Does AOE decline just patient or leading the study group?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I don't think I talked to them outside of the VitalLearn and AOE coming in together and saying and some other people saying we'd rather you just use VitalLearn. I think people have seen my emails. I went down a rabbit hole with VitalLearn, and I am now pretty unconvinced that it's a good gatekeeper for what is good learning tools for our kids. It's I'm not denigrating IT experts. My stepdad is an IT expert, but it is all of it's generally a consortium of IT faculty and staff from our schools, bulk purchasing products. I have looked at a couple of those products that I very much question, and I I think at least one of them would not make it through the AI chatbot pause, because it is promoting a girl talking to a chatbot as her main friend. And I think they should take it off the website, like, now. But I would say that I am pretty convinced that AOE leaning on Vital Learn is not a good way to go, and that's what they recommended.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. That's the essence of why we wanna work here, to analyze the issue.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I I'm always hesitant to include pre predetermined conclusions before we even ask for the study report. I don't get the results of the study. I'm not again also not a big fan of legislators being the sole members of any such group as it becomes very potentially political and there's not a depth of subject matter expertise only gonna pass.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I'm just asking clarifying questions, I'm tracking.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What is the predetermined conclusion? One is the five year prohibition on chat bots, the other is the comments that's not a lot of insiders made about whatever software application we've got, familiar with, but I don't know if it's good or bad or and I don't wanna make I'm not gonna go with the be in committee and make, you know, determinations on what something should or shouldn't be included for the study review. Okay. This. Just very hesitant about it.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the and the agency might wanna testify. Not sure who else get it through this discussion, but thank you. No. You can have that. So what's what's the committee's sense about this?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes. Not to be a contrary comment that left you, but I'm not all board of five year prohibition on chatbots. Schools, it's not like they've been around for twenty years or are an integral part of education. And, you know, it's not as if there are some profound benefits that groundbreaking benefits that we heard about regarding AI than they possibly need to be in schools. I don't see but there are concerns about the harms of AI and chatbots. And so putting the pause on something like the chatbots and letting the admitting or the the study group, they would study. It makes more sense and then, if somehow they find out that chat bots are absolutely great for kids, then, I've moved from.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Not great for kids, but maybe appropriate at certain ages, certain settings, certain, it's a tool, what it is. It's like there was a time when everyone globally was afraid of electricity. Didn't want electricity in their homes. This is, you know, same as bright parallel here, but there's a AI is a tool, period. Topology tool. And and how we we use them Is it appropriate lesson for students as well as adults?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I think it it has a impact on as when you're young and you're developing your brain, it's if there is a impact on the cognitive ability or the cognitive development of kids. If they're heavily dependent on chatbots rather than using their own. To resolve the problem. That's that's my guess.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I will also say, just to point back to the language of the bill, it's asking schools to make a very conscious decision if they're gonna introduce a chatbot, that the the building leader, the principal should essentially know that a chatbot is being used. No school, I don't think, wants the liability of kids that were supposed to be using some educational chatbot having a a big major health challenge or mental health grade because their relationship was with the chatbot. No argument.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But we're talking about section two, which is a prohibition. With an exception. Yep.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: It's saying make a conscious exception. Just to remind us here, as the bill came over from the house,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: it had really, really two things, right? Right. First one was the The registration. Second one? The work with

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the BAOE study and certification. Okay. This one has now kind of

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a three things going on. Right. One is the same, both of the speaking, both same registry. Well, actually, it has maybe it has four things going on. You know, there's now the aging enforcement mechanism. Third one is the prohibition of chat box. Fourth one is yeah. Let's say we're we're supposed to that. So if we've got those two buckets versus the four, what do we want? Where where where are we headed here? Where do wanna get more testimony

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: and approval? I I got the same concern that senator Weeks did about having all legislators. I mean, why how are they qualified? I'm not. And even if I even if I'm loved, I I haven't got the time to do it. So we're gonna end up with legislators that have the time that maybe I might not have on that. So I think we needed somebody from the outsize. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Gets this is this gets really this is a philosophical question because I have I have in the past this you know, here we are setting education policy. Right. Us, we're doing it right now. That's what legislators do every day on the one hand. And I've always been I've actually tended to be one who believes legislators should be the same as some of other people should be Should be

[Senator Nader Hashim]: in, though.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Shouldn't be a 100%. No.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, that yeah. I've always believed in a 100%. That's just but that's I've been consistent about that, so it's nothing to do with this situation because just like we do here, we are it. We don't have people from other this sitting here with us. So they're they're in Who's gonna guide? Yeah. They are but they're witnesses. You have the same thing. So that's just that I didn't even wanna get into it because Sure. That's just why

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I know I've wedded I've not wedded to this. I think you asked the right question. Who would staff it? With AOE, I like, I don't know if they're here, but AOE was not asking for more things to do. They were actively posing more things to do. I we it could be in ADS, but we'd have to get them in to see if you only have legislators, you can have ledge council staff it, which means they're drafting what looks like our legislative language. Once you put a non legislator on that, it can no longer be staffed by the legislature. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Who do we need for witnesses? We don't have a lot of time here, so

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, what's the most important part of this bill? Starting the registry in that, which I think is what we were looking at to do, this other stuff is add ons in the chat box that the study study groups, groups, I believe, would be a good idea. But some of this other stuff could wait. Like, the chat box could wait for the study group to come back this this and say, okay. We've done a study. Definitely need to put a rubbish there.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Well-

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Or you've done a study-

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And there needs to be a condition of government.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I wrote the other parts of the bill with the House members who were involved because I don't think the registry is that valuable. I'm just gonna but you know how I feel. Like, I I honestly don't know what information we're gonna get in two years from who decides they are ed tech and needs to sign up for the registry. In the next two years, I think we're gonna see a huge increase in the use of generative relationship technologies or whatever they're called. And I have concerns about what is being put in front of our kids right now. And I think right now it would be good. And and I I'm pointing at the screen because I would really ask us if you didn't click on the link I sent to look at Inanimate Alice. It's a program that is that is bulk purchased for our kids where you never see the girl's face. She is looking down at her phone, and she is talking to, like, Brian or something, her AI chatbot friend, and cleaning her kitchen in the elementary school program and traveling the world with her AI chatbot friend in the high school program.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Who's Foxen?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: It's on the IT system that AOE said just use the programs here.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So, Senator Hashim. Yeah. I was just gonna say,

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I think the provision is despite all of this, I don't think. Yeah. The these corporations are going to care about or registers. And more than open to going down to two years. And because, I mean, this technology evolves extremely quick. And so maybe two years, but there has to be a check back before prohibition is lifted.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I guess I'm I'm sitting here thinking we'd someone from the agency's office, maybe a couple of superintendents to weigh in on that. They're they're getting the agency and a couple superintendents or a couple of principals one of them just to just to get some

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Somebody. And

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: it has to be that they're using this in their school, that you have a superintendent. Either way. Or they'll be so. I want each. Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Let them let them go ahead and help.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I'm kind of looking to our our school board folks because I think school boards are gonna start getting questions about what is what is happening. We heard, you know, stories of kids getting onto other parts of the Internet on their school issued device. I'm sure you all are talking about this. So if you have superintendents or other people that wanna weigh in, I mean, I I just feel like parents are asking school boards what is happening.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Think about a couple of super schools? Yes. Okay. Alright. Good for today because we have to move on. And so that we will soon soon we'll try

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to get we'll get you

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a couple of supers and we'll get some of the three g's office in next week. Absolutely. Again, it's discussion. Yes. So next slide, please. Miscellaneous bill, I'm gonna get copy, but start without me. Right here.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Sophie Tidanti from the office of Virtustained Council. And I was contacted about this last night, so I just wanted to check on what would be helpful to to all of you because I did come in last session. I updated the oh, I mean, it's like you're getting copies. Bought copies too. So guess I can just go through that swiftly. My understanding is it's really dealing with last best offer and the way the final resolution of disputes goes. I could focus on that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes, the proposal in front of us, it's a single sentence that would shift from last best alteration to arbitrary of being able to make a choice from which it's nice. So that's the question in front of the committee, which focuses back

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: to Okay, all right. So do you want me to run through the PowerPoint, and I can do that super fast and just skim through it and then okay. I'll I'll just, yeah, get through it quickly. So this is really just providing an overview on the state law regarding Commission on Public School Employee Health Benefits. It has a history of how this seems to be, the creation of the committee, and again, just to be clear, VIHI continues to develop the plans, and then the commission, this is the composition of the commission, 10 members, commissioners serve in a positive capacity, so you have five representing school employees, five representing school employers, and then the chairman who could be removed. This is the duty, so this is what the commission itself decides. So again, Beehive still develops the plans, So these are the items that the Commission itself looks at. And I'm on slide two, three, four, five, six. So they determine the percentage of the premium paid by the employer and employee, the out of pocket expenses, whether to establish a health reimbursement account, a health savings account or both, who bears the first dollar responsibility for out of pocket expenses, and then a grievance procedure. Contracts, if they're not less than two years in duration, the dates on here reflect when decisions, you know, what happens in the process right now because it's a lengthy bargaining process. The current contract expires at the 2028, but as you can see on this, the process for the next round of negotiation starts this coming October. Again, it's a lengthy time because of school budgeting, etcetera. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues in front of them, then there's a dispute resolution process, and this sets forth what the fact finding process is. So a fact founder tries to mediate the outstanding matters, prepares a report, the report is not binding, and then if the parties are unable to reach agreement within thirty days after receipt of the fact finders report, they're unable to obligation. My understanding is that's where the focus is here. And so the mechanism is that commissioners mutually agree on a single arbitrator, or if they're not able to agree on a single arbitrator, then there's a panel of arbitrators, and each side picks one arbitrator, and then the third arbitrator is appointed by the American Arbitration Association. And the parties submit their last best offer to whichever mechanism they go down, the labor relations board, the arbitrator, or the panel on all outstanding issues. And then under current law, the Labour Relations Board, the arbitrator on the panel selects one of the last best offers in its entirety without a minimum rule, and then they weigh a number of statutory factors. So those are the factors in current law that the ultimate decision maker here considers. So, the interest and welfare of the public, the financial ability of the Ed Funds, if school districts pay the costs, comparisons can't get benefits for some of these usually public and private sector employees in Vermont, cost of living and prior existing health care benefits and coverage with school employees, and then they issue a final binding written decision. There's no ratification required by either party. This is the decision. And then this is just emphasising that under the labor relations act of teachers and administrators, there is a right to strike. Under this statutory provision around the commission, there is no right to strike. And I share that because I think that has some bearing on how these issues are resolved. And as some of you may know, we do have seven labor relations statutes in Vermont, So I just pulled together what that looks like. So again, permission on public school employee health benefits, when you get to that point where there's an impasse and you've gone through all the other dispute resolution mechanisms, when you get to the end, the decision maker selects one of the last best offers submitted by the parties without amendment. So that's the current law on how this works right now for the Public School Employee Health Benefits submission. Under the Labour Relations for Teachers Administrators, the parties can mutually agree on whether to have binding arbitration confide to the last best offer of the parties within its entirety, or they can choose to have an issue by issue basis of the last best offers of the party. So that's the parties themselves decide that. When they get to sort of final dispute, they've gone through all the other mechanisms and this is the end of the day. And there is a right to strike under the Labor Relations for teachers and administrators. Under the State Employee Labor Relations Act and the Judiciary Employee Labor Relations Act, again, it's last best offers submitted by the parties without amendment or if the offers of both parties are considered unreasonable and unlikely to result in a long lasting negative impact on the party's relationship, then they then the decision maker, again, could be with them on Labor Relations Board or an arbitrator, they would then select, they could select the fact finder's recommendation. So they ultimately would have three choices: Last Best Offer by the party or the fact finder's recommendation. Under the State Labor Relations Act, which is almost never used, and the Municipal Employee Relations Act, there is no last best offer provision and there is a right to strike under both of those. And then we have these two quirky labor relations statutes that involve negotiations with the state really over reimbursement. So there are sort of odd ducks. But between the language and those two statutes is the board would select the last best office of the parties in their entirety, but they also would consider the selections cost. And again, there's no right to strike under that. So there is an array of approaches under Vermont's legal relations laws, so I just thought that might be helpful context for you to have.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Have you seen the language that was proposed yesterday?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Not formally. My understanding was it was to provide that the arbitrator could could make an issue by issue determination.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, basically, it says an update to '16 BSA was one zero one two one zero five. The the lobby groups were arbitrary of or arbitrary of shall select the best best offer of people already on the age of basis with or without a metric. So, by the way, you can just close. So, naturally, that's important.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So, the the purpose of a last best offer is the goal is when when parties confront a possibility that the decision maker is going to pick one or the other, the incentive there is to make your last best offer as appealing as possible, as reasonable as possible, as moderate as possible, So it's a mechanism to push the parties as close together as can be. If it's an issue by issue matter, then it doesn't have quite that same impact. So, you know, it's just a different approach. But that's the purpose behind the law assessment.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, I understand. I actually meant if we were to want to do this assessment and we tried to just over to you, is that language sufficient to achieve what we might be looking to achieve?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Doing it, so it would be, don't know how it be, it would be the last best offer on the issue by issue, so each party would have a last best offer on a particular topic. I don't know the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: whole thing, but I sent you on it.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sorry. I don't have my email up, so.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim]: That's what was sent

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: by Sarah Weeks. Yes. Yeah.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Although, yeah, I mean, I don't know where.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm just thinking technically, so that was my question.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Gotcha, okay. Shall I say, can you last repeat points on an issue by issue basis with or without them? Right, so, yeah, I think that would, you know, that could, that could be it. Mean, essentially, as I understand it, what that language would do is, you know, topic A, each party puts forth it last best on topic A, and the decision maker can choose between either of those or could change it, right? With or without them, they could change it. So again, you're you're really moving away from the last best offer concept. This is more of pick and mix.

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Right? That's what

[Senator Nader Hashim]: we'll say. I was about to ask and then said it it's not really a last best offer if it it can be changed.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: If it was if it was without amendment that was issued by without amendment, you would still have some incentive there for each party on topic a to put forth what they can live with, so to speak. But if it can be an end of everything, probably the incentive would be for each party to, you know, sort of go to the outer edges and then see where their decision maker lands up.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Seems like it's never had I mean, if you put it with a man with or without man, you know, certain stuff would have a lot more uncertainty and vacuuming process. General colony.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it's different to the Bosbestovic concept and the rationale behind it at that point.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, the question really does come down to one, if you want to ask best offer, one of one, the parties to put forward their proposals and then we hear against them within those lines. That's the question of focus. So actually, we have more witnesses, so we can follow-up on the discussions.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I was just going to say, under the Teachers Labour Relations Act, it is last best offer. They can choose to have last best offer. Just pick the, you know, the entire package or last best offer by issue. But I don't think that's that would be without a comment. So okay. Alright.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: hope you get in touch. Well,

[Sue Ceglowski, Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association]: Good afternoon, thank you very much for allowing me to come in on this issue. I'm Sue Seglowski, Executive Director for the Vermont School Boards Association. And as you've been speaking about, we are asking the committee to consider adding a new section to the miscellaneous education bill, which would revise one sentence in 60 VSA Chapter 61. That chapter covers the Commission on Public School Employee Health Benefits as Legislative Counsel just described. This commission was originally created as an effort to contain the pressure of rising healthcare benefit costs as they impact the education fund. There have been two rounds of bargaining so far and the results of these two rounds of bargaining have not reached that goal, in part based on the current structure of the statute. So specifically, we are asking for the change that I have noted in my written testimony, you have. Changing the sentence that, currently the sentence says that the BLRB arbitrator or arbitrators shall select one of the last best offers without amendment submitted by the parties prior to the VLRV or arbitration hearing in its entirety without amendment, and we are asking for that to be changed to the BLRB arbitrator or arbitrators shall select between the last best offer of each party on an issue by issue basis with or without amendment. I wanted to note that the arbitration panel decision following the second round of negotiations contained the following statement, and I'm quoting, the arbitration panel has considered the statutory factors and reviewed the evidence and testimony in making its final decision. As stated at the outset, this panel's statutory authority is to award either the employer's LBO proposal package or the employee's LBO proposal package. It cannot accept portions of the employer's or employee's packages. Perhaps this arbitration panel would have reached slightly different conclusions than of the binder of fact, Mr. Cochran, as are no clearly right or wrong answers to these weighty and complicated issues. So the bottom line is winner takes all arbitration limits the arbitration panel. This was a panel of very experienced arbitrators making the statement that they would have or possibly could have come to a slightly different conclusion if the law was different. That's why we are asking for this change.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Questions?

[Sue Ceglowski, Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association]: Can I answer your question? There's a reason that a lot's best offer dynamic becomes important, right? You have negotiated, you have mediated, you've come to impasse, and you're both trying to put something on the table that the Vermont Labor Relations Board will accept as the chosen proposal. My understanding is the one side of the negotiating table with VIHI, I

[Senator Nader Hashim]: don't know

[Sue Ceglowski, Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association]: if I'm saying this correctly, has not been successful three times in a row. Two. Two So do you have a sense do you can you share an example of where you think they would have chosen, like, one of your proposals and another of the other side's proposals? I can tell you that the last time this took place, the two size last best offers were extremely close. Okay. And they just happen to choose one unit?

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Yes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: K.

[Sue Ceglowski, Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association]: How does the process work? What happens?

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: You must have also had one seventy one because all the street closed. What happens then?

[Sue Ceglowski, Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association]: I will let Mark Koenig speak to that. He is actually one of the commissioners. He now works for the Vermont School Boards Association, but he was one of the commissioners in the last

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: round of bargaining. I guess for

[Mark Koenig, Vermont School Boards Association]: the record, Mark Haney, the SBA, but for this purpose I was on the commission during the last round and then became the chair, and then once I took this job I stepped off. During our during the process, we have a bunch of issues that are on the table. We negotiate them, and that gets us to mediation with fewer issues. We negotiate those. We get to fewer issues, so we get to a point where we just can't settle on the last few pieces. The last round of negotiations essentially was over $100, and it was decided on the the for the employees. So it was a matter of how much the HRA would be handled. Employers were asking for I'm making up numbers here, the HRA is $5,000. First 4,000 is the employers. The next thousand is employees, and then insurance takes off. We wanted that $3,911,100, and they wanted to stay at the the teachers' union wanted to stay at the 4,000, 1,000, or being part arbitrary or one way back. So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So in that case, the last we've asked over constructs, we actually did try to put those together.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: In that case, it did. Yes. And I think it illustrates that with that process, there's not a chance for the arbitration panel to be flexible and make a flexible decision, And that's what they pointed out in the book that I read to you.

[Mark Koenig, Vermont School Boards Association]: That was not the only issue at arbitration, wasn't she? Oh, okay. That's what

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we can do. Can just write it and get down to that. Okay. Yes.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think it would be fair to characterize any arbitration process as trying to bring the parties closer and closer to the whole function. Is it the point is at the end, when you find out where the gap is, how you resolve that gap is the whole question. I think everybody respects the arbitration

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: process. Except for the And

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: in the past, the health benefits were bargained at the local level, and as legislative council described, that's a different process. It is not a required last best offer in its entirety, every single time.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Is last best offer ever used at that level?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I believe at that level the parties can voluntary agree to binding arbitration, and if they do, it's not the last best offer in its entirety.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. So I think you're counsel.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Hello. Hello.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I am Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel with Superintendent May. I have testified, I believe it was last six sessions, about the same issue, so I will repeat sort of what I went over that time. So, what I'd like to say about this process, I've met the attorney that's represented Vermont and VA. There's my two rounds of statewide healthcare negotiations. I've represented the union on both occasions and the arbitrator, so I've been very familiar with the process. But overall, in effective bargaining, and Sophie sort of talked about this, does the process really, and if it's to drive them carnies to settle amongst themselves, and that's why you go through so many steps to the process. You start out with effective bargaining, you get it in passing, you find a mediator. That's like the parties need extra help to work that out amongst themselves, but a mediator does post that agreement. Then fact finding is the same process. It's a little bit more formalized, but fact finders and the arbitrators are extremely experienced. They have to be mutually protected by both parties. The fact finder that we use in this last round of negotiation with John Cochran has been doing this fact finding in Vermont and around New England for over thirty years. So he is extremely experienced. And we actually, I believe both rounds of negotiations, have accepted the fact finders report, right? Who said, You are the expert. You've come to some sort of middle ground here between parties. We want to settle, and that's what we have provoked. We've never been successful with the SBA and the other sides of settling with the fact finders report before we go to arbitration. The first round of arbitration, we had one arbitrator and the second round, had three arbitrators. Each party selected one arbitrator and then those two arbitrators selected a chair. So this is a long process. I can tell you that the arbitration, the last round was five days. I believe we had somewhere upwards of 15 witnesses. They're hearing every detail of both sides. I feel that both parties get great ability to present their cases. And the idea of this labor relations scan is that you want the parties to push an agreement before you get into arbitration. And, you know, it's our position that if you move away from LBO, that the parties are not going into truly their last position. They're not really truly in good faith trying to reach an agreement. If you're going in thinking, well, if they pick and choose, maybe they'll select this and this. You're not really trying to go in and say, This is the best that we can offer. I'd also say that healthcare is very well aware. It's very complicated and we're very technical with our last proposal that we bring. The premium is tied to what we're going to

[Senator Nader Hashim]: offer for the out of

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: pocket expenses. We might offer something different if we're going have an HRA versus HSA. These are very intentional, both of that we're thinking based on what we think our numbers can afford and what makes sense with the system that we have in place for healthcare. So, there is some concern as well as that if there was this sort of mixing and matching that was done, I think that that could have significant unintended consequences of the more fully vetted by parties going in. And again, negotiations are supposed to be in control of The two parties are supposed to control their negotiations process. This is seeding that control to a third party. I'll just say the mixing and matching that you heard that's been discussed under the teachers' negotiations, that's if both parties choose to use the binding arbitration process, which in my experience in my 12 has never been done in negotiations between any of our school districts and local unions. That's not at all the preferred process that our school boards and convenience use.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What is the preferred process?

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: The binding arbitration process. Parties do not mutually sludge that process. This is quite different across statewide health care process than having specific binding arbitration. It's not really for used our normal negotiations ever.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So if you don't use it formally, it's being used here.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: It's being used here because this is different. The statewide health care bargaining statute is separate from a bargain.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I would also say

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: like And

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the system. You're as you're you know, despite the fact you don't know what is the system in this instance, you do like the system.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I think that this I think that the last vests offer the way this is what we have to, this is what we have, this is what we have to navigate, and so we navigate it. I'm just saying that the comparison to the other statute and then mixing and matching of LBOs, last vest offers, is not something that we use typically in our negotiation at both levels.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: We we we created a very high stakes process with VHI. You know, we thought it would save us money and time spent on negotiations if we did this at the state level. Unless we're gonna relitigate that, it's a it's it's a really high stakes process to all of a sudden say, we're gonna introduce uncertainty at the very end and not go with more standard labor relations practice of binding arbitration, essentially.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, I'm not taking a position here, but there's a difference between binding arbitration. Our binding arbitration is not exclusive of either last best offer we were picking and choosing. So we are I think the fact that we're finding arbitration is kinda sad. The question is within the notion of binding arbitration, which system it is. So I'm not I can't.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: I think this proposal de incentivizes the parties with reaching agreement across themselves, and that's what you want. You want to incentivize the parties to reach agreement. There should be some risk going into that final arbitration that I really need to go end up with my best in what I take, or else I'm gonna get something that's not the best outcome. But if you're not having that risk, then you're not incentivizing an agreement between parties, which is what you want.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Questions?

[Brian R. Siegel, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So hypothetical on this, where it was a $100 apart, and

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I have a trigger in this and go, well, why don't we make it 50? And then each side agrees to that amendment, and it's done. But if we're doing it the way it currently is, it's either 100 or not

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: 100. Well, I think in the last best offer they'd have to choose one or the other. So one would say the error, one would say the 100, the arbitrator can't

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: choose with this too, but no. Here they couldn't say

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: No, they can't come up with a new number. They can just pick and choose between different provisions of the last list. Unlike a conference briefing. You can't generally The Fact Finder's the one that comes to a middle round, I'd say 15, so that's why the Fact Finder's, that's a really useful tool to use Fact Finder's recommendation.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Because the parties know they have to get that close to the fact. Okay, sure. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rebecca McGraw, General Counsel, Vermont Superintendents Association]: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Soon as you wanna add anything to Paul, but I'm still here. No. We actually don't have another witness in the show for sure. Oh, wow. Uh-huh. So we have a break.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Are we

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I mean, are we done with this issue? Are we No. Completely Oh, okay. The next witnesses at 03:30 for this?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No. Okay. Have no more witnesses for this lined up. Less people have some that won't bring in. So we have some time for discussion. We'll get to take a break. We're gonna get quick. Okay. We'll take a break. It's 03:30. We have we have the agency coming in at Oh, hang on one second. Okay. We have the agency coming in at 03:30 on both the miscellaneous And he's also and the absenteeism bill.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Because we've never been last