Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: We're live.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're live. Senate Education Committee on the afternoon of May 7. We are doing 09:55 today, obviously, but we're taking a quick diversion to hear a proposed amendment to H. Nine thirty, bipartisan Kesha bill offered by Senator Bongartz.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: Thank you so much, Senator Bongartz. I really appreciate you letting me come in. Thank you, committee and Senator Williams online. I'm sorry this is coming in so late, but we've all been very busy. So the truancy bill just sort of came on my radar very late in the game.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I really appreciate your work on

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: that bill. Having been a teacher, I know what a struggle it is to sometimes get kids to school. So thank you. This just has to do with the provision around homeschooling, which I also really appreciate in that bill. Thank you for doing that report. This is in particular, there's so much great work that is done in homeschooling, and it's often a really great option for families and kids. There are times, unfortunately, when things can go wrong in a homeschool environment. And there was recently a really good article in the New York Times about this. So I think it's something that we all need to pay attention to. This amendment would just ask that the and you can read Section 7AB1. It's about enrollment. Prior to acknowledgment of enrollment as required pursuant to subdivision section, the secretary or designee shall provide notice of the enrollment application to the superintendent of the student's resident school district. So a district would notify that a student was going to be moving to a homeschool environment. And then it says the superintendent and Department for Children and Families shall notify the agency if there are documented and unresolved concerns related to child welfare, educational neglect or truancy involving the student. And we just had a very quick conference here, impromptu, saying that we should probably add to the extent possible or allowed by law, to the extent allowed by law. So I'm hoping that you all will consider this amendment. I think it's an important one just to make sure that we're protecting kids to the greatest extent that we can. And look forward to hearing your reactions.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just to make sure that we understand it, this is a very narrow amendment, if I'm reading it correctly, that would imply only during the school year, I guess it could, well, during the school year, Just during the school year. All there is no contact, but there is no suspicion of

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: What it says here, educational neglect, child welfare or truancy.

[Unidentified committee member]: Any of those?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you, sir.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Senator Hewlett, how does how does DF where is it DCF know that there's this transition happening? What's how do they get alerted to provide this report?

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: So it says the secretary or designee shall provide notice of the enrollment application. So the when the AOME finds out that a student is making a transition, then they would allow the school district to know.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I see the school district is aware. How is DCF aware? Or are you assuming that the school district knows that DCFs may have a previous relationship?

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: Yeah, I'm assuming there's communication between these entities. But it's something that if you think it needs to be further fleshed out, I could look into it. But I think when it comes to child welfare, usually there are a variety of parties that are in communication.

[Unidentified committee member]: Good question, Michael. I

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: fundamentally agree with your comment. Let's do this again. So the secretary doesn't need to provide. So who notifies him first so that the parents come to the principal and say, we're going to switch, then what happens?

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: I phone a friend and ask the Legis Council to weigh in.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St. James' office in the legislative council. I'm sorry, I was not being attentive.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: Oh, we're wondering about the this is the amendment on truancy.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, I'm with you there. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: I do remember that.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: We want clarity on exactly how the process goes when a student

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Starting with the student or the parent coming to the principal and saying, we're going to, he or she is going to leave school and we're going to homeschool, then what happens?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me pull up the statute as I do not know this, sorry to disappoint you.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: It's okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's one area in Title 16 that I have not memorized yet. I do know that it's section 166 b. And in order to enroll in the home study program, what is required in subsection A is that a parent or legal guardian sends the Secretary of Education notice of intent to enroll the child in the home study program at least ten business days prior to starting program. And the notice is required to be submitted on a form developed by the agency and includes that form requires a bunch of information. And for each child not previously enrolled in a public school or a home study program, there's information about disability and discrimination.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: That really answers the question, that it does. It starts with the AOE.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so it starts with ASC and AOE, then it goes to the superintendent.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't believe so.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Of no? Shall provide notice of the enrollment?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Well, this You're asking what's written already?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This is a modification of what's written.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: Right. So I think Legg Council just clarified that it So the whole process starts with the Agency of Education. So that's why in this What you're seeing in front of you, it starts with the secretary. The secretary is the one who provides the notice of the enrollment application to the superintendent of the school.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And so how do And it says, the superintendent at the Department for Children and Families shall notify the agency. That's the first time the Department for Children and Families has mentioned them. How do they know that they should notify the agency?

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: I'm assuming there's a relate again, this is my assumption that there's communication between the various parties. And it could be the superintendent and or the Department of Children and Families, depending on the situation. Yes.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I support the underlying concept. And I think, though, that it's maybe generous to assume that branches of government or parts of government are communicating with each other, even though it would make sense that they are. Think we all see that in our various ways. But regardless, I would be supportive if there was clarifying language, perhaps, that the superintendent will check the DCF in some way or another, affirm that there is or isn't an ongoing investigation or unresolved concerns related to child welfare. I think maybe instead of unresolved concerns, maybe it should be ongoing investigations or findings.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: I I could try and work with Ledge Council between now and third reading to answer some of these questions. But it seems as though you're okay with the concept. But we can try to fine tune it a little bit between now and tomorrow, if that's okay. Okay. You Thank can put it off the cap.

[Unidentified committee member]: Awesome. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Guess we have the option of starting either where we left off yesterday or starting with the changes that were made through yesterday. Why I have to choose one or the other one up to the from yesterday. We're now working on a new 4.1. I'm eighty six PM last night.

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

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I'm great, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm just logging into Zoom. Would you like me to share my screen, or do you want to walk through the language without it?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: All have hard copies. Okay.

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

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Although, Senator Williams, do you have are you just seeing it on the

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I don't think he's seeing anything. No?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: No. I have it in front of me.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Polaroid. All right. We're good.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yellow and green.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we're going to go to the blue link. We're going to go to page two subsection C. This is a new language in section one, which is your legislative intent section that reads, It is the intent of the General Assembly to create a statewide education system that encourages and supports local elementary schools, central middle schools and comprehensive regional high schools that provide each student with universal access to career technical education.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Good.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Then

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we are going to move to Again, I'm just looking at the blue language because that is what's different from yesterday.

[Unidentified committee member]: We are going to go

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're going to go all the way to section 13, starting on page 31. This is the study committee process statute or section. And the first change from yesterday is on page 32. Subsection two, on line 15. This is the language that requires school districts to participate in the study committee process. And we've added that they shall be required to participate in good faith in the study process. Then if we go over to Page 33. Subsection C. This is the subsection that previously required subdivision C on page 33 line 18. This subdivision required study committees to explore the advisability of operating a regional high school. And we've added language here to mirror the intent language that we walked through just a second ago. So, a study committee shall also explore the advisability feasibility of a contemplated new Unified Union School District providing for the education of its resident students through local elementary schools, central middle schools, and comprehensive regional high schools that provide each student with universal access to speed. So just mirroring that intent language.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The rest is blue because this

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is the reporting requirement that I overhauled last night based on our conversation. So, if you remember the House version and the draft we looked at yesterday had two different reporting requirements for a study committee. One for study committees that are proposing to form a new school district and one reporting requirement for study committees that say we're not going to propose to form a new school district. What I have done today for you today is basically smooshed them together, augmented the reporting requirements a little bit. And so I've given you all possible opportunities. And I think you can accept what I've put in here. You can weed it down. I think there's one reporting requirement that may kind of sum up most of all of them. So, I think you have a lot of room to work with here. And instead of me trying to make those judgment calls myself, I've just given you the whole menu of options. So, now we're on page 34, line four. A study committee formed pursuant to this section shall prepare a report with its final recommendations as to whether it is advisable or inadvisable to form a new Unified Union School District. In addition to the reporting requirements in current law, the final report of each study committee formed pursuant to this section shall include the following. The names of the participating school districts. An analysis of the strengths and challenges of the current structures of all necessary and advisable school districts. What's the study committee's actual final recommendation? Is it advisable or inadvisable to propose formation of a new unified school district? An analysis of the educational advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the formation of a new school district or, I'm on page 35, some other configuration of school districts, including maintaining current school district boundaries while creating efficiencies on a regional level using options available under current law. An analysis of the financial advantages and disadvantages likely to result from formation of a new union school district or some other configuration of school districts, including maintaining current school district boundaries while creating efficiencies on a regional level using options available under current law. An analysis of the likely operational and financial viability and sustainability under the foundation formula of a new proposed unified union school district or some other configuration of school districts, including maintaining current school district boundaries while creating efficiencies on a regional level using options available under current law. An analysis of how the final recommendation will enable the Study Committee member school districts to, under the foundation formula, maximize operational efficiencies, promote transparency and accountability, and encourage and support local decisions and actions that provide substantial equity of educational opportunities that lead resident students to achieve or exceed the state's education quality standards, all at a cost that parents, voters and taxpayers value. And finally, if the decision of the study committee was not unanimous, an analysis of the minority view of the committee. I think some of that is duplicative. There's nothing legally wrong with being duplicative, but I wanted to give you all of the options. Can you remind me, I know it refers back to another section about who receives this report. These member school districts participating in the study committee will receive the report. And if the study committee is recommending formation of a new union school district, Then the study committee goes to secretary and the state board. Okay, so I had a few sequenced thoughts going on in my head. Number one, we try to have certain studies and things go to the committees of jurisdiction. I know that might yield its own opinion, but it has been suggested in various realms that we have joint legislative oversight committees when we do not meet. We have one for judiciary, we have one for pensions, some retirement. We put the retirement one together after we felt like we did some work, but that the work needed monthly attention from legislators outside of the session. Do we want a joint education oversight committee outside of session to hear these reports and understand the progress, be more ready to receive the information when they get back into session.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You mean for this summer?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm talking about for whenever we're not in session.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Permanent basis?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I hadn't got as far as permanent, but the retirement one was made permanent because we can always dissolve them if we don't think they have value. I did just think of this when I thought that they report to the committee and then I remembered a lot of people said, hey, why don't we have a joint education oversight committee if we're doing all this work outside of session or asking for all

[Unidentified committee member]: this work and we want to see how it's going outside of session.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Most of these, but

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I actually think that is a great idea. I think it kind of puts us, puts a bit more accountability on us or whoever's sitting here next year, so that we are less inclined to say in January, Wow, this is so much new information. There's no way we can figure this all out in just a couple of months, when you have been participating over the course of the summer and the fall in the oversight of what had been going on. But I think that could be a worthwhile concept to explore.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's an alternative. This is multi committee jurisdiction, which is also why we form joint oversight committees because school construction institutions might want to have a member, finance, appropriations, so on and on.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, for joint justice oversight, it's a mix between Senate and House judiciary and Senate and House corrections, talking about judiciary,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the way you're making it. So how would the board mention you're talking about Three the three from the Senate?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I mean, we could look at the retirement one we set up because it is the most recent example where it, I think that's what it was. Three from the House from the Senate, not on the same party, appointed by the Speaker of the Committee on the Face, I think.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Well, why don't we, do you have enough to take a shot at that?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, can certainly make up the membership, but what are the duties of this body? That's the important policy piece to flush out. And I'm not trying to be glib here, but I might also start by looking at the retirement group because most of these groups interchangeably just manage the ongoing oversight of work that we had set in motion and these general matters. Like they do not, to my knowledge, because I was on, I've been on a few joint oversight groups, but they don't make policy decisions outside of session, just like joint fiscal has a very narrow range of policy changes, can make policy decisions, they can make. These joint oversight committees don't make policy decisions, they make the stakeholders come to them once a month or so and report on progress, etcetera.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Sure, that's all we'll be looking for, not for them to influence what's going on in any of the regions, just to take the information that's coming to them to feed to the committees. You might

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, and I'm so glad for is that Daphne? Or was that Daphne? Okay, thanks, Beth. So, I mean, this is the only one I was here for creating, I think. And I think it went through government operations, but that's also because of the pension issue. So just to note, I don't know if our committee is allowed to create a set of committees, I

[Unidentified committee member]: think it would go to rules also,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth, you tell me at some point, it doesn't have to be right now, if I'd be too flippant in the idea that we leave the language purposefully vague in a lot of these so that they have broad oversight authority to bring in whomever they want in their area of jurisdiction. So for example, the first thing that the Pension Oversight Committee does is issues of public policy related to the provision of retirement benefits to the state's public sector workforce. It's about as general as you

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: can be. So I should read and spend a less bad I think, by taking up time if

[Unidentified committee member]: Can I work on this? Yeah,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: if you want to work on it. What's that? I'm not thinking about, like, does it happen during the session, the Garyass meeting?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. Oversight committees almost never, they do not meet when the session is set. They meet because there are monthly updates and they want to keep work on track across committees.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: So Terry's hand is up. Oh, take

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a seat. Senator Williams.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Chair Bongartz. So, you know, if if a committee was for we're not a full time legislature. So and senators have two committees. So if you're on, you know, a clean water committee in the in the natural resources committee and and this committee were coming up, what about the state agency? What would they do that this that has the jurisdiction over this? AOE. You know, if they can't do it physically because they don't have the funding or the the FTE, they would hire somebody to do this. Correct?

[Unidentified committee member]: Which is this?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. This depends on what this is.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just saying that how we gonna how we gonna fund it and how we gonna, resource it. I'm saying that maybe AOE should be involved if if it's our policy that we should do that. It's a good idea to come up with, but now we gotta make it happen.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'll wrap this

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: up. Perhaps having created a joint oversight committee before or serving on one, it's helpful to know that they are constructed for a reason just like this, and they would bring AOE and other state agencies and other stakeholders in as needed to monitor the progress of various policies since we don't meet six months of the year.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And that's just to monitor, not to try to influence in any way or?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: So I'm on joint justice and we would meet once a month and it was basically keeping tabs on what was happening generally in the judiciary and correction systems. And so we would meet basically for the full day. We would have different members from different agencies come in. So the Department of Corrections would come in, Judge Jone would come in, and people would ask their questions. And you would start to get the sense as to what sort of issues would be arising that could be addressed in the upcoming session. But it wasn't a committee where you're taking a vote or anything like that on what a policy should be, but rather And this is just a hypothetical. If DOC is coming in and saying, Our jails are overcrowded or we're having staffing issues, the corrections committee would say, All right, that's on my list of things to visit once the session starts. So it was more exploratory than it was policy formula.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I guess that would help if you saw that one committee was really strong and you could use their advice to pass on to another working group, to another?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They're almost, by their very nature, multi committee oversight groups, because that's so hard for us at the beginning, really all session. Same session.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So it would be only in the summer, only while we're on Not

[Unidentified committee member]: the summer.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: At the At

[Unidentified committee member]: At summer.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So this

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: is gonna be an ongoing process. I don't think we're gonna be able to do it once a month. I

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: only have one here to do this, Terry. So it's gonna be moving along. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So going back to this, it's hard to read in the blue, which we know, that's okay. But I'm curious about the language recurs while creating efficiencies on a regional level using options available on the current bar. So I'm a little line is that? You could say one, two, three on page 35, for instance. Some other configurations, so this is if they don't want a bird, but they also can look at other configuration that might make sense, including maintaining spurred school boundaries. So then while creating efficiencies was actually a requirement then somehow on a regional level without merging? That sounds like kind of a meeting seesaw meeting or something. I'm not

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: sure No, how we talked about this yesterday, and there are several current provisions of law that are available to both school districts and supervisory unions with a mind towards creating efficiencies. One of those is the formation of a BOCES. So if you create mandatory seesaws, that's already taken care of. But if you didn't, then the option to form a BOCES is on the table. There's already a provision in statute that allows supervisory unions to contract for services across supervisory unions. And there is a provision in current law that allows school districts to jointly operate schools. So those are just some of the provisions that exist under current law that you would need to make no governance changes to that theoretically could create efficiencies. And so we talked about this yesterday as B coming back to you all with a broad reference to the options available under current law to sweep in anything that's available.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So what's giving me pause about this is that when the facilitator gets them together, we actually want the real discussion to be about merchants. And this is kind of like a quick and easy out from having those discussions.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think that's one of the reasons why I had separated out the reporting requirements from advisable to inadvisable. The ask of me today was to come back to you with the same reporting requirement for all outcomes. And unless I were to say, if the recommendation is to form a new union district, then report on these things. And if the recommendation is not to form a new union school district, then report on these things. I guess I'm at a loss for I'm just giving the options, right?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I know what you're doing.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Oh, okay, then I will say By

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: that, I meant I didn't mean to be asking you why you did this. That's what my point was. I know you're trying to do what trying to do what yesterday's discussion asked you to do, and I'm trying to figure out what it actually means.

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

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm you don't want to land on the ground.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Could we put in writing that we want an emphasis on merging first? And then one Because they've got to give us a reason why they're not That if they're gonna show us the efficiencies of how they're gonna work with the foundation formula staying in their current state, then that answers that question. Because that's what the governor's looking for. That's what we're looking for. That's what our V's are looking for, to show, one, give us the guardrails of what you want from us, which this spells it out. I believe the whole Vermont school system knows we'd like to see more consolidation, but under local control. So I believe what the attorney has written is pretty good.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I wonder if we're going to go this route, you might want to think about my 18 page 34 putting a period after the word district, then saying something more to the effect to set this up, in the event that the decision is made that a merger does not make sense, then we want to keep the emphasis on virtue of some things. Yes, Senator Hashim. So I'm not trying

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: to backtrack here too much, but Senator Heffernan mentioned a second ago is bringing me back to what's on page 33, lines one through six. And I'm still not quite clear on how that could encourage mergers. Because as far as I can understand it now, it looks like it could make them a bit more convoluted. I mean, it's it's taken me, two days to, I think, fully understand this language here. So I'm also not sure quite sure where it came from. So can we get some more of an explanation on how this change could impact the studies or the facilitation?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think what it says is that same study the area would be pulled together, but a district with a different operating structure will not force or be necessary to emerge from because otherwise one of them should have to completely change their operating structure. If that means you talk about that, they can do it voluntarily.

[Unknown senator (presenting home study/truancy amendment)]: But everybody's

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: bought here. Yeah, it's voluntarily anyway.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, wouldn't there be some benefits to districts change? So I guess like a non operating district being required to merge with an operating district, would that not potentially help out that non non operating district a bit more if we're trying to merge them together?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Think unless that happens voluntarily then they're being forced to. There's nothing that I'm saying they can't do it. But

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: if they're necessary to merge, though,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: then that Then when they vote no, it'll kill the whole project. That's what will happen. If who votes no? Well, the non operating district.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, but anyone can vote no.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, and I'm saying to say that they could mean necessarily what the law's got.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: When you vote no, you have to have the evidence to show that when we go to the foundation formula, you can survive. And if you can't, then you to do something different. You can't just say no and walk away and

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. So, I thought that, I could be wrong. Are we sized on what they form? Do we say they're forming this is a study to form a school district only? No. Not? So, wouldn't it be? Is that because we're trying to sidestep a debate about whether or not we're okay if they form a supervisory union instead?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: No, I think it's just that if you have, let's just use an example, four districts that operate K-twelve and you have one district that is not operating.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So White River SU beta for all of Yeah,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: and if you deem that one to be necessary and it votes no, then the merger doesn't happen.

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

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And when we heard testimony, I think it's one bit of testimony we've heard throughout our travels and that's what we heard all winter from rural Vermont, it's that they value the non honoring status is very important. First, they can discuss, they can decide whether they want to do it. It's just not making them necessary to the future. Because then you're trying to it's like forcing forcing is what we're trying to avoid with this. I mean Well, when

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we have this discussion with the mapping, the compromise that everyone agreed to was supervisory district or supervisory unit. This seems like it's going out of its way to do something that frankly, if members of the committee are like, what exactly are we trying to say here? The question is, why can't we just allow these groups to look at supervisory districts or unions if we think that otherwise things might fall apart if they're only us to live at district.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think this doesn't have anything to do with supervisory districts, it's just district

[Unidentified committee member]: workers. Yes and

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I stopped sharing my screen so that we don't get a headache.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: However, can I ask you this question at the same time? If the group decides, no different than our task force, said, Oh, I know you wanted us to do SDs, but after sitting down and discussing this, we believe an SU is the best fit for our region, if you will, lack of better words, they have the ability to do that currently in this verbiage?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's nothing in Section 13 related to supervisory unions. It is about the formation of new union school districts. Section 13 asks for these study committees to consider I'm on page 31. Let's see. I'm on page 32. Each facilitator shall group school districts within the facilitator's assigned region together to form study committees to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. That is the ask. If they study the advisability of forming a unified union school district and they say, that's not for us, that is an allowable and reasonable result of what they are being asked to do, they would have to come up with a report with requirements that are TBD that we're debating right now. And then they can go on their merry way. And by going on their merry way, they could form their own study committees that are exploring the formation of a Union Elementary School district or a union high school district, not a unified union school district. They could decide to stay six separate school districts under a supervisory union. All of that could result from a study of the advisability of forming a unified union school district and the conclusion that it's not for them. So all that is being asked of the school districts in Section 13 is that line on page 32, line three, studying the advisability of forming a unified union school district. That's the focus. If someone decides it's not a good idea, then they decide it's not a good idea. And this bill is silent on their next steps. But others could continue on. Absolutely. So the language, in my unnecessary because everyone needs to be told the same way that this is voluntary and nothing's compelling them to do anything. Because saying that one group shouldn't feel compelled might make other groups feel like then silently they are being compelled. But aside from that, if I don't have my maps, they're in my office, but if we are looking at these maps for this, that's what this is doing, And there's a whole band of areas that you or others have said are more inclined to form a supervisory union than a supervisory district. Why wouldn't we just wanna allow for that possibility and have that discussion with the other committees if the idea of sitting down to try and talk about the district would be a nonstarter for some of those communities anyway?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: My intent, Chair, was that they have the flexibility to do either or as the committees decide. And that's what I was hoping to see in the verge, that they have, and when they're building it, they're showing us where the efficiencies are, that it's going to work under the foundation point.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So let's sort of back to the fact that SPs and SUs are not, we should hear, it's not what we're talking about. We're talking about just districts within whichever the construct is. And once you have worked with the facilitator within the district through which you initially assigned, then there can either be a voluntary, yeah, we're going forward or we're not. And it's only been, this is only saying that after you decide to go forward, you can go forward with all the districts deemed necessary to merger, which means that if anyone votes no, there's no merger, or you can have 145, and I'm making up that number, deemed, it would be nice if you join, but you don't have to.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: But they're automatically lumped in as advisable even if they would want to be considered necessary

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: this if there's a different operating expenses? Sometimes they, oh, that's what you're saying. Yeah, it would be advisable, but it wouldn't, so they could still be hit or out depending on the vote in the end of the district.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I thought if it's a sizable Yeah.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I'm trying to get attention. So if I can, so if these committees and towns move forward, great. We've we've solved the problem. Right? But I still question the pure voluntary nature because we've set up here a onetime deal, onetime funding. Set them up, ask them the questions, have them collect data. Study committee provides their recommendation, goes to the towns. If either one of those two parties says no, then what? Dead in the water. And I haven't heard any explanation of where the process moves after that.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We almost need a chart to keep track of where they are. And, you know, maybe a line and block chart that says, form of union school district or union school. If not, then you go to the next block.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Then What's the next block?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: If there's some way that we could track every everybody's progress by doing that. Does that make sense?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Tracking makes sense. We're all gonna have to keep tabs on what's happening here. But what happens when either the study committee and or the town say no? What's the next block?

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Then we gotta give them the next block. What are we gonna put there?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I just wanna verify that. Yes. I wanna make sure

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I didn't lose the track here. So Senator Hashim, are you suggesting that you would like to see lines five and six on page 33? Pardon me, what did you say? Are you saying you'd like to see lines five and six on page 33?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: No. I mean, I think lines one through four and a half should be deleted. And then where it starts, nothing in this act shall be construed, that should be kept. Because I still I'm not seeing what benefit exists in the whole picture. Okay. That's fine. For one through five? Let's just I'm open to being persuaded, but I'm still not seeing

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Let's try that

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: on. I'm sorry, what are we trying on?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're trying on deleting lines one through the midway section, line five, on page 33.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So subdivision A would start with nothing in this app? Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: going to go ahead and say, I would reword the whole thing and get more to what I think I heard from Senator Williams and Weeks, which is the rest of that section talks about if a study committee identifies that this will work or this won't work right away, they were allowed to bring other people in. I feel like that should lead the the essence of this section. It's like they were allowed to, you know, like, discuss at that point what other other four configurations might be. Here. Let's go. Yes, there is subdivision. So, I then would take out one through six because nothing in this act compels the merger of any school district. That's true. Okay. I mean, we could debate that, but I don't want to debate like some are more compelled than others.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, I just want hold on. So,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is the ask to take out lines one through six? Okay.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I think we want to encourage them to go to the next step. Just let us know they're doing it. If they if they all just say we're not going to we're not going to form a union school, then we should be able to go, they need to keep going on with the process.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So there is no process. So you would need to invent that process.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Correct. So let's go to page number four at the bottom and I was suggesting maybe putting a paragraph or On page 34. And then, instead of saying war, start with a new preface language that says, and this goes back to separating what Senator Weeks said, been looking for a bit, but in the event that they make the decision not to verge, part of the report would be within rationale for not moving an analysis of this section of what's the on page 35.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm happy to do that. We get back to the two separate reporting requirements, which if that is your ask, that is fine. May I make a suggestion? This is 110% a policy choice, But I kind of tripped over myself saying, I think there's some duplicativeness here and maybe you want some or not others. If your goal is to just have one reporting requirement for both options, May I suggest subdivision seven?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Page 35.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 35, line 16. Thank you.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, does that make sense?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is silent to what the outcome is, but I believe it's a summary of everything that comes above it. You do not have to agree with me. I am just making a pitch to try and help move us along. I'm happy to be quiet.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Don't you, Dan.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Don't help me.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We started out.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I agree. I think it's like, do you have anything else you'd like to add, you know, kind of section. I feel like the group will have covered that without needing a requirement to fill in more words.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Could that be that it will be in that section, resident students achieve and or exceed in all the costs that parents and boarders and children,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: right? That will conform to the new foundation formula?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It says that right on line 17. So, an analysis of how the final recommendation will enable all of the following under the foundation formula. Perfect.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Perfect. Okay, so we move on to who?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can I tell you guys a secret? That's current law. This is all taken from current law.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What do think?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is great.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I'm gonna

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: choose all of them.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. Good. Such a great fellowship. Moving on. I'm going to get a whistle for tomorrow. Okay, so am I correct in assuming that that exercise resulted in a reporting requirement that starts on page 34, line four, a study committee form pursuant to this section shall prepare a report with its final recommendations, yada yada yada. We're going to include the names of the school districts, an analysis of the current structures as they come to the table. The final recommendation, we're going to strike on page 34, line sixteen, seventeen, 18. We're going to strike on page 35, lines one through 15. We're going to keep an analysis of how the final recommendation, lines 16 through 20. Then on page 36, we're going to keep lines one through two, and we're going to include lines three through four for a minority view.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Great.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I say, great, not because I am making any judgments on your policy choices. Great, because we're moving on. Subsection E, I should not have highlighted this. I'm just so bad at highlighting. This is language that's been traveling in here from the House. Members of a study committee that determines it is inadvisable to propose the formation of a new unified school district. This is the language that says you can then continue on your way however you want. You can form a new study committee with different members. You can form a new study committee with the same members, but you are looking at a different construct.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: What was a one time shot at the study committee?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: As required under Section 13, but subsection E is telling you there's still current law available, and if you want to avail yourself of current law, you could go off on your own.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Not necessarily money.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Correct.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm just trying to be the one to take it on

[Unidentified committee member]: the thought that I hear and make sure it's reflected back.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I don't know if I'm missing what's available under 16 BSA Chapter 11, but isn't this a place where we could say they could pursue any formation option available, not just a school district option? So Chapter 11 is the Union School District Formation Study Committee process. That's really the only option under current law without you making any changes to it that school districts can decide to do on their own. Supervisory unions are formed by the state board, not voters or the individual community. And the only other option other than a union school district is a town school district or an incorporated school district, and that may involve withdrawing from a union school district, which

[Unidentified committee member]: is also covered for 11.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So if I can say one thing, there's probably some districts right now that could just fill out the report and say, yeah, we've already met these. We already have made our decision. Some point, we're gonna need to stop the process and look where everybody is to keep it on on track, to keep it on time. You know, I'm I'm concerned about some schools getting left behind. And who's gonna be this set of eyes to make sure that that happens?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oversight Committee. Well, I think you're thinking about working districts in order to something that they pay attention to. And it's set up to do that, I think.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Okay. And that's current law, basically.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. I wouldn't say it's current law. Let's talk about that. How does the sentence help us? So, the worker has to be approved by the I'm

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: pulling up Chapter 11 right now. It does go to the State Board, the State Board makes a final recommendation. I'll pull up Once I locate it in statute, I'll share my screen. While Beth is doing that, besides the reality that there's like more layers of complication, why would we not want supervisory unions and districts to all be having these conversations about bigger supervisory districts? They can. You're getting a report, H-nine 55 is passed by the House and as it stands now. You're getting recommendations from the agency, I believe, in consultation with the field and the state board for newer, larger supervisor unions based on what's happened in the field. Okay. So your question about orphan districts, share my screen and show you what the state board's analysis looks like.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This is analysis when they have deciding whether to approve a merger?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's not necessarily approve a merger. I'm trying to find the right word. Oh, it is approving the study committee's report and proposed articles of agreement, and then the voters would essentially approve the merger. So, under Section seven zero nine in Title 16, Subsection C, this is the state subdivision one as the actions the state board takes. So, they review stuff, they have to give the study committee an opportunity to be heard, they consult with the secretary, and they can request that the study committee amend the report or the proposed articles of agreement or both. And then in order to approve the study committee's report and proposed articles of agreement, the state board has to find that formation of the proposed union school district is in the best interest of the states, the state, the students and the school districts and aligns with the policy set forth in Section seven zero one of this title, which you all just adopted as the reporting requirement analysis here. So, it doesn't specifically say the state board should not approve articles of agreement or a study committee report if there is an orphan district. In fact, orphan district doesn't appear, that term doesn't appear here. You can make an argument that they really shouldn't be finding that formation of the New Union School District is in the best interest of the state and the school districts and the students and aligns with Section seven zero one if it does leave a district orphan, but it doesn't explicitly say that, so you are relying on that analysis. And I'm not the one doing that analysis, so.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So back to Senator Williams' question, which is legitimate. We want to make sure we don't end up in an orphan district. I have assumed the board would find that's not the best interest that's leaving, that's creating an open district. It's okay. We have the deputy secretary here who would ask to come in. Maybe if you just take that part. You stay where you want. Or you can, well, if you want to, but you can stay where want. But Jill, just come up to there.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay, to here?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You can stay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is now a time, though, if I could stretch my legs?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we have all this. Ben? Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: All right. Doctor. New Child Care's the annual Deputy Secretary of Education and Chief of Operations. I think it can be great to think, is your heavy heavy heavy into benefit from larger ed transformation work. I think what I wanted to ensure is that there are some significant changes stating for school construction in the House past age nine fifty five that we have some concerns about.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: So I want to flag these so that as we're moving through and doing this other work, we don't sort of lose track of it. I'll be poking my head up and say, remember I don't disagree that we should know that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Running on less and less brain cells and I thought Senate Finance was doing a big rewrite of that section. Yeah. Okay.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: Yeah. So, still some unresolved issues in the We're paying attention to it because it's while drafting right now. So, I think I can be pretty brief in signaling some things for you all to be looking at. And Senate Finance, when I was in there and their amendment is a response to the testimony that I provided, they did also say, there's a piece of this that wants to send it back. So they also want to make sure that you have a very understanding. So I think the critical things to signal so you can have some very, very brief testimony from me. You've got

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a slide deck I don't

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: think you need to necessarily go through. And then I do refer you back to the report that you've all asked to write, which has the very exciting name of Section nine of Act 73 of 2025 report. And when you sort of look to the end of that there was a whole section on what's needed to implement state aid for school construction and we really laid out an implementation plan. And the House passed bill to furnish in some really significant ways from that plan. And I know that Senate Finance is trying to reconcile some of those things, and I will absolutely be in touch with Senator Hardwishes moving forward. So I want to say there's sort of three critical elements to maybe pay attention to as

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: you move through the work.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: The first is that, as conceived in the House passed the age of September, the state aid for school construction is now being the timeline for implementation is as you are also having full conversations about the formation of CESAs and voluntary mergers, even the amendment that you're contemplating now still has a pretty long set of time when district mergers are being contemplated and then ultimately implemented. My caution here is that that is not the time when you want to be investing significant state aid or school construction dollars because the implementation plan has always been focused on the need to understand what your system looks like before you start investing potentially generational levels of money into buildings. So I can see both, I've been heavily involved in this work. I understand the need and I understand the hole that we're in. But construction projects are long term, and we need to take a long term view to implementing this work with fidelity and then being really good stewards of these private dollars, ensuring that we're investing in the appropriate buildings aligned to our new governance structure, whatever that may be. So there's a timeline issue in September as contemplated. I would even suggest, and again, I don't want to, know, Senate Finance is in the middle of their night, so I feel a little bit unkind sort of interrupting their work, but I think there's still a timeline issue there. We need to actually have decisions around what our districts look like. And then you're going to do a facilities master plan for that district that contemplates the entire portfolio of buildings, determine which buildings you're going to invest dollars in, and those are the buildings that you have applied for state aid for school construction, so really for your order of operations. The other thing that came over in 1955 that was a concern is, it, in essence, tasks both the agency of education and the school advisory or the state school construction advisory board with significantly more work and zero resources. So I just want to say it in plain language, the agents cannot do rulemaking, the building out of construction guides, the updating of capital outlays by getting formula and was setting a minimum of maximum square footage for state aid for school construction approval with zero resources. So there is no state aid for school construction team, I don't have the bodies in the agency to do the work. So, there's just an order of operations and I'm just sort of, you've heard me say this a lot recently, we can't do the work of property resources. So, there's an issue there. And I know that Senate Finance is looking at ways to address that, but this brings me to my third concern. The third concern is that the way that at least is currently contemplated, and it would be using education transformation dollars. So I'm going to say, again, very plain language, I think we have very clear evidence from the limited service eight month positions for ed transformation. We can't hire for a year, especially this level of expertise. So we're asking people to leave careers, frequently take a pay cut, to come work because they're an initiative that they work at the state level, they're not going to do it for a year. So there's a practical issue there. But I think also, again, state aid for school construction is a long term project. We have immediate and really critical needs with the Ed Patient Transformation funds that you appropriated in Act 73 last year. There's very specific things that the legislature directed the agency to do. We are doing those things with those dollars. So, diverting those funds away from activities that you've directed us to do and we are well underway in doing so is a thought that I want to signal generally. So, for example, one of the critical things that you've asked us to do in Act 73 that goes well is to ensure that students have access to high quality instructional materials and that districts are aligning their curriculum. We are under way to that work. We don't roll out bids in a week. That's irresponsible, right? So we are preparing that body of work with the understanding that we have the funds that we've appropriated available to us. So, funding these positions, again, appreciate some of the priorities trying to solve the resource issue, but funding them out of the Ed transformation budget is a big challenge, and I'll signal that to Robby for some of the other conversations. You all appropriated us with funds with specific directions to do specific work, and we are doing that work. And when you're now potentially defunding us for that work, that's something that you may want to consider. Those funds you specifically directed to ensure that districts had the support they needed for ed transformation and that education quality did not suffer during this kind of transition, that's exactly the word gatekeeper specific. So I can leave it for questions, but I do know that this amendment is coming, I'd be happy to respond to more specifics around there, but we're quite concerned. Really wanted to get in here. Know, we've doing this work for years and years and years, and it feels a little bit like we're potentially funneling in the goal line in implementation, and we really don't want to do that with this.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you've delivered this testimony to the finance committee?

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: I have, yes. And Senator Hardy, to her credit, is putting forward an amendment to try to invest in that. I don't think we're there yet, and I'll respond directly to that meeting once the final amendment. Jonathan, you follow-up with a better sense of where that is today than I do. But what I saw as of this morning is

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we are the Census Committee, we do have joint jurisdiction over this topic. It is not the amendment though, it's not something we have seen or are likely to look at until after So

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: I only responded to the sooner, I wanted to signal what was in

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator my Ram Hinsdale.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So the reason that I have asked institutions to be looking at this question as well is because so many of the questions are around how do we prioritize capital construction? I don't think anybody's trying to keep me from the Massachusetts School Development Authority, but I haven't been able to reach them. Okay, Senator Harrison has been in touch with them. My understanding of their model is it is very, it's a dotted line to their agency of education, but it is its own department that gets input from the treasurer's office, the buildings and grounds, because I mean, this is why school construction used to live within the capital bill and the institutions committee. It is just as much a question of where, why, how, the bricks and mortar, as it is the educational vision of what happens inside. So I have sent the chairs, well, I've sent the two chairs and the vice chair of finance since I've been having this conversation with him, but also the chair of institutions. The summary I have of the Massachusetts model because what maybe you bring in representative Emmons, but I very much want to set up something that has the capacity to do this well. I personally don't think it's set up for success if it's one or a handful of positions in AOE. I don't think that's a best practice around the country when we're talking about competitive grants and bonding for new facilities across the state. That is an institution's question in large measure that has a whole system that we've designed.

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

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: the development of the language around the state infrastructure was about a three year process. It began with the task force. And the task force looked at models from across many states, including Massachusetts. Incidentally, the Massachusetts program was actually grounded in the work that Vermont did through the original state aid for school construction program, which was housing the ADC of education successfully for the leaders. So, the rules and regulations and approach that Massachusetts took was actually borrowed from the ABC, the Massachusetts administration. We did look at that model. The Massachusetts model runs on about 70 staff. So where the task force ended up booking as a model that's reflected in the legislation that's passed is Rhode Island. So in Rhode Island, the state construction is housed within the agency and again, it's actually based on the Vermont model from twenty five years ago. So we actually laid the groundwork for what Rhode Island did and then really expand. The structure of having an advisory board and then having the program actually sat within their agency of education, the Department of Education, is the model that was ultimately recommended by the task force and taken up by the legislative group and is reflected in the past legislative language. Their program runs very successfully and they manage, gosh, they're well over $2,000,000,000 And only stat do they buy back. And our statin model is built on their statin model. I mean,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: also Rhode Island is very small geographically. There

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: are some But more so, a similar portfolio of buildings and a similar portfolio of buildings. So, there was real similarities. This body took a lot of testing from the back end. So, just so you know, it was, I don't want you to think that folks didn't look at Massachusetts. We also looked at Florida, looked at West Virginia. Rhode Island has had a very successful program for the past ten years and has been able to really move people on their portfolio of buildings in ways that are very aligned to their state priorities. What is their revenue service? They are doing the death service bonding that is in the lower original jurisdiction. So that authority also works with all of the communities that are bonding? Yes. And essentially says maybe you can't, until you go through other processes, you're not high on that competitive list. That's right. They do a lot of technical assistance actually working with communities to get community buying. They're very successful in getting bonds passed that communities are because they've done a

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: lot of

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: engagement. They do have we're really borrowing, though that one's helping. Our legislation is very worth it. And they also manage oversight of career technical education facilities. And is that either does that need to be said here so that it doesn't get lost?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The career and tech ed? Yeah.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: I don't believe so at all. I think that we are pretty confident. But I will confirm the city is also like it could be a strong difference. Thank you guys much.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're actually going to go through this section of the chair.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Construction is very important. But I think what's more important is that we get our schools remain on this and not worry about the construction till next year, that keep either a study group or what have you, but not have it take up so much time in this bill because we want to get to a more efficient school system. And as these regions get together, we'll have a better idea where our buildings are at too. But to put so much time in on funding and when we don't have any money to fund it, I see as a real waste of time in that we need to get our districting and that settled, and it shouldn't be such a big part of the bill. That's just my opinion.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: just want to acknowledge there is, in the House class nineteen fifty five, and John can speak to this prior to the high degree of technical knowledge like that, there are some sticky questions, some kind of down the road questions that are answered in your question. So if you don't take it up, would say hold on to some of the language, there's some smart thinking in there, but it is the sort of down the road, technical, you get a program up and running, I think there's good thinking there. It's just out of alignment with the work that just said. There are steps that could be taken to prepare the system. The reason that you didn't see a request for physicians in this FY '27 budget is that the governor has been pretty clear and consistent that he needs to see the new governance structure before he wants to see an investment of 2020. So that's it. It's not a lack of recognition of the need. It's when do we responsibly do this? If you don't want to be having to stop doing the job. So that's one piece. The other piece that I would say is that you all created a Facilities Master Plan and Grant two years ago. It is a requirement, an eligibility requirement, that any school is applying for state aid for school construction with a district level facilities master plan grant or master plan, and creating a grant and acknowledgment that there's costs associated with that, that might be a step for next year's funding. Facilities Master of Goods take a year or two, particularly with the level of community engagement that we are asking of it in statute. So there are some concrete steps we can take to do so. I can come back in next year with those recommendations.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Chair Bongartz.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Could you could you ask the deputy secretary to go closer to the mic? I'm only getting, like, every other word.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: She doesn't have she doesn't have one. So I didn't we didn't say that. Sorry. It's okay.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Yeah, there's a number of things that have to be done here simultaneously if we're going get to the finish line. You know, we got all the contracts that we've got to get sorted. We've all the real property that has to be decided what's going to be used and what's going to be purchased new. You know, maybe we could realize some money. These things have to happen simultaneously. And I don't think we're on the right track to do that. It's gonna take multiple agencies getting involved to make this all happen.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: Do, an area of concern for me that was made really clear to me this morning, just to share an anecdote that I think is illustrative of the issues you're grappling with, is we have two districts that are side by side who have been talking about a potential merger for a very, very long time and certainly have the option to do so and have never done so. One of these districts is getting ready to make a significant investment in one of their buildings that by any measure, if you looked at it, would likely not be the building where they would potentially have their middle school in the future if they merged. This gives me highs, right? Because while we are grappling with these large system level changes, folks are beginning to invest real dollars in their buildings in ways that may end up stranding costs down the line. But the other reality of sort of humankind here is when we make an investment, then we want to hang on to it, right? So you've heard me say this before, clarity of kindness in these conversations. The more clarity we can give districts about where things are heading and sooner we can do so, the more effective their decision making would be. And they will, one of the things that I have discovered over and over and over again is that when you tell districts what the guardrails are and what the plan is, they will begin solving the problems. But this was a conversation I had this morning and I thought, well, is sort of my nightmare when it comes to CDA for school construction or school construction is that we start investing limited resources in not the quote unquote wrong building, but maybe not the buildings that we're gonna be prioritizing if we knew where we were going.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We need to stop this winter. I think we all actually have been thinking about that, and know that we need to really figure out the system and the systemic channel, the places that want to make most sense within a new system before we start investing as big thoughts. Think we all agree about that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There is still, my last question is to make sure we aren't creating incentives and disincentives in different places, right? So if we're saying we need the capacity to help districts fully merge and take advantage of the best savings of the foundation formula, that there may be an unintended incentive that districts want to bring money in before they have to worry about whether or not the foundation formula will make it difficult for them to find school construction. So have we separated school construction fully and debt fully from the foundation formula or from other emerging conversations?

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: No, and that's something that's in 1955 that was passed by the house. So, was one of those areas where there was some thinking that went into how do you deal with leg and leg we would call it. And I know that's something that folks are grappling with. The way that it's drafted, John correct me, it's been a minute since I looked at the original draft, is a pretty significant investment of state bonding capacity to pay off those bonds. And there are trade offs. If you're paying off legacy debt, then what are the consequences of that for future state construction aid? I'm trying to stay out of the conversation because I have other folks who are the experts in that area, but you're pointing to something. You don't want to disincentivize mergers because folks don't want to take on somebody else's legacy and conduct. But they also do get the advantage of the brand new renovated building. So there is a

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I know that's a question. Is the legacy debt going to include the

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: four years from now until a merger might take place? I think those are conversations to be had. John, do you?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Legacy debt, John Gray, opposite of council. The legacy debt aid cutoff, which is I think what you're asking about, that's passed by the house is the 2025. Currently, the language would not capture any new school construction in that piece. Course you could change that, but that's not our

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: version at this point has taken that section out.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, this is what, I mean, we really have to think about what disincentives or incentives we're putting in the next four years. I mean, I can understand districts might wanna try and make decisions otherwise that are not in the best interest of the state in the next four years. And we should, this is why I think

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: wish institutions or somebody who wants to talk about bonding and debt and facilities because the

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: should continue the markup. Yep. Agree.

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

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: their office of the treasurer and then the Vermont Bongartz, Bennington, I think are the folks you would want to talk to about that as well. Rev Evans was a member of legislative task force working group. So she's a wealth of historical knowledge.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Jill (Deputy Secretary of Education)]: All right. Thank you. Great. Thank case you're tracking.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Is there an opportunity to take part?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes. Provide a group? Yeah. Thanks, sir.