Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. Welcome in to the Senate Committee on Government Operations for Tuesday, 03/17/2026. A very happy St. Patrick's Day to those of you that celebrate that event. Happy St. Patrick's. It looked like that green green and No green. Don't know if I'd agree, I messed up. I'm not in peace of green. That's okay. It was just

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: You're wearing enough for both.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Exactly. Oh,

[Speaker 0]: yeah. Keep it close though. So before we start with the Burlington Charter and then the Bennington one, I've asked David Scheer to come back and talk about potential issue that has arisen with S-eighty nine. David is the deputy treasurer for the state of Vermont, and I was made aware of this just today. So if you could explain to the committee what the problem is and the what the method by which we could solve the problem.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Absolutely, senator mister chair. And thank you to the committee for having me back. For the record, David Sherr, deputy treasurer. And first, my apologies to the committee for our office not having fully appreciated the challenge. Everything happened fast, but we we did a little more computation. It happened in day. So here we are. What the our office wanted to note for the committee, there are two ways that you can get paid out here. One of them is if you were to die on the job. Those types of claims, relatively straightforward. Wouldn't take a lot of administrative time. There's a second way you can get paid under this statute, which is through an occupation related illness. That can be it's very brief. I'll just read the definition. That could be mean a disease that directly arises out of and in the course of service, including a heart injury or disease symptomatic within seventy two hours from the date of last service in the line of duty, which shall be presumed to be incurred in the line of duty. Those sorts of claims are a little bit more challenging because they don't necessarily happen while somebody is literally on the job. The concern from our office that expanding the numbers significantly will create challenges in terms of determining whether or not the disease arises directly out of or, of course, service or with the heart injury or disease piece, whether, again, whether that was in the, you know, in the course of service. All four of the claims that we have paid out in the last couple of years were under this provision. None have been paid out under the sort of on the job type of provision. So again, if you wanna be supportive of this, we do want to see this move forward. I think there are we talked with the BFCA about this, and had cooperative conversations with them about this. I think there are a couple ways forward. One is we would be I I think we would feel more comfortable if there were a onetime appropriation that we could potentially put towards a medical expert should it be needed if and when we're trying to assess this kind of plan. Another resolution to this would be that the occupation related illness would only apply to the current population of people who are the beneficiaries of this fund, and that the additional beneficiaries would be within the original definition of line of duty, or sorry, not the original definition, the definition of line of duty that does not include occupational related illness. But as it's drafted right now, the occupational related illness would apply to all the new beneficiaries as

[Speaker 0]: well. Does everybody understand what Mr. Scherer's saying? Senator White?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Scherer. Yeah. I I think I would be open to not moving forward that provision into this new class of folks, but we're keeping it for the already existing firefighters.

[Speaker 0]: Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I feel like if you die because of an illness you acquired at your job, you should have the same eligibility as if you die because someone shot you at your job. You still die because of your job. And my understanding is the one time appropriation you're asking for is fairly small.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yeah. I would be we're proposing 25,000. We believe we can hire a medical expert for that. If that were to be able to use that in future years, it might be different, but given the infrequency that has happened so far, we think that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that would seem great. Okay. Senator Brooks. So, David, did you say the four deaths that we've dealt with in the last ten years, right? Pardon me. Yeah. I mean, the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: In the last

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: four in a few years. But, yes, before that, was ten

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: years before. So the those four have all been contracted illnesses on the job, but they didn't die on the job. They died as a result of illnesses contracted.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Related their work.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Related to their work.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: And so, and I believe it was a couple cancer cases

[Speaker 0]: and a couple heart attacks. Over the Strep and they could show that the strep could induce the heart attack came from the job?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: The way that our office has made these findings is by utilizing workers' compensation law, which has within it a bunch of provisions that are, you know, we believe sort of clear the way they drafted occupational aid and illness, we think, clearly, you know, they did it thinking about workers' compensation law. And so we have used workers' compensation law as a way to make that determination. And the short answer is that, yes. The the board ultimately found that pursuant to the occupation related illness piece and utilizing workers' compensation law, which has a much more fleshed out set of definitions about heart disease, cancer, things like that, we're able to determine that it falls into that position. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Because workers' comp does allow for this.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: For you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to to have an illness that was contracted or heavily influenced or exacerbated by the exposure on your job.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yes. And to clarify, we're talking specifically about firefighters here. Where We were. We we were I'm saying workers' compensation loss, but that provides us with the sort of guiding rules that we've been using as specific the workers' compensation law I'm referring to is specific to firefighters. If we do expand this Yeah. We will have to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Figure it out.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Figure it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But I thought all of workers' comp allowed for you being compensated for something that you cut cancer or whatever that you got by exposure either through your job.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I don't wanna go down as not being a expert on workers' compensation a lot more broadly. I'm I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: don't I appreciate I appreciate we've had to

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: What I can say that with respect to firefighters in particular, there is language that is very helpful for us in understanding whether you fall within this. Got it.

[Speaker 0]: So I'm agreeing with senators Morley and White. The intent of this bill was to pay a benefit in the line of duty if you were killed. And we took no testimony about related illnesses being a contributing factor. So I think it's easier and it's cleaner to carve out an exemption for the additional universe of people that would be included in this, and allow the firefighters who already have this benefit to continue to enjoy it, but not for the additional people that we're bringing into it. And that's how I feel. So do I.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I think the one kind of differentiating piece for me would be the financial angle with the 25 k request. Do we know how Appropriations feels about that, or kind of what the likelihood of the pathway of this bill is with that money versus without?

[Speaker 0]: No, what I, again, if we had intended for that to happen, I think we would have taken testimony in that regard, and I'm amazed that you can hire anybody for $25,000 and keep them on the payroll for too long.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Well, to be clear, is he like a contracting? Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So every host company.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I it wouldn't I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be each time. It would be if it was complex. I mean, if if a nurse had a needle stick and ends up with hepatitis and dies of hepatitis related liver failure, it's fairly straightforward. It would be in an instance where it was more complex.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: That's correct.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You So wouldn't necessarily need it every single time someone made a claim.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: That is correct. Especially, we've done it without that for firefighters in particular. I think with the expansion without some of the other law that we've drawn on, it may be more likely we needed, but it is true that it has not been needed every time.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I just I feel really strongly that if you die because of your job providing a public service regardless of how your job guilt you, you should get the benefit. And it's I mean, we're talking about $25,000 that may be necessary at some point down the road. It is such a small amount to make sure I I mean, that if someone dies because of the service they provide to, Vermonters, they are,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: their survivors are considered. Okay,

[Speaker 0]: well, guess I've made my physician known.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I did actually, I'm presenting in Appropriations Act two, but I have spoken to the chair of appropriations about the appropriation and added it to his list of things. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: If I do well, will finally draft an amendment which would carve out the additional members of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I have not had time to do that, and I wouldn't be the one to draft that amendment because I would support it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Senator Brooks? So I think there's something wrong with our passing out what we passed out and letting the house deal with this. I think that we have they will have a lot more time, and I we could certainly say in our presentation that additional issues have arisen since the we passed out this bill, and that we would hope that the house would take them up. I I just think our making decisions this was already a fairly speedy process to get this through in the first place, and I I think we're all grateful for getting that through. But I think we can easily and thoughtfully hand this to the House to to to address this piece is sort of what I would present, given the time for NP House.

[Speaker 0]: So it would seem that there are now core members of the committee that would favor not putting anything in with the additional. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Wait. Hold on. So I guess this is just like a process piece. So my understanding of your description of this is this is how the bill as written would play out. Yes. Folks would be qualified. So we would have to amend the bill correct this. So I don't know if you have four members on that. So I think what Alison's saying is she doesn't want to amend the bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, I'm happy to if people want to, but I also think it would be simpler

[Speaker 0]: to what it says, it's set already sort of in motion and and let the house solve this problem. I mean You're that type. Often we're trying to do it. And it's the claim. I mean, I'm happy to the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: rest of you wanna amend it and have an appropriation that we have to figure out how to defend that's filed.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't want to amend it to have an appropriation. I wanna be very clear. Have What would I want? I wanna let it go as it is and not amend it at all.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, I would support that and let the house deal with it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, what happens with the $25,000 If it is needed, it can just go in the budget. It does not have to go in this bill.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. So our options, basically where we stand, if we do nothing to this bill now, it won't have the 25,000 and it will include the seventy two hour piece for everyone. Okay. It kind of okay. Do okay.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So I don't want

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: could still

[Speaker 0]: I wanna thank you, What's coming back because that isn't what I understood, and that's how I open up. And so that there lies my concern.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Thank you. So

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that an underlying law. It's not in this bill. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I didn't know that. I don't think any of us did. I didn't know that until this morning. But that people That there was an underlying law that provided an additional benefit for those who weren't at the moment they were working killed in the line of duty. I don't know whether the VSEA has strong feelings one way or another. I'd certainly be welcome to or willing to hear them. Pete? Sure. Thanks, David.

[Steve Howard (Executive Director, VSEA)]: For the record, Steve Howard, the executive director of the ESEA. So, of course, our preference would be to either leave the bill as it is and add it or add the 25,000, but in the light of the time that we're where we are now in the process, and I think considering the chairman's comments about not having received testimony on that particular provision, we would be okay with the exemption being added to the bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Unfortunately,

[Speaker 0]: only four of us will probably support that, so we'd have to have a floor amendment to card those folks out against. Am I reading the Senate?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You know, I won't vote for that. I think we should leave it as is and let the House take testimony and make a more informed decision as to whether they should be left in the bill or not left in the bill. We have a whole another chamber that can deal with this and take testimony on this. I guess I'm less clear than I was.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Because I also think the house will have more time and can address this more fully. What did we discover? I guess I'm not clear on what was discovered and what that more people were covered than we thought? Not more.

[Speaker 0]: Not more, but more circumstances are included in the provision. So if someone gets an illness or an injury, I guess, seventy two hours or after that from the time they die and they got it at work, they would be able to claim the, $80,000 benefit. And how many were there? There was like 12, according to what David said, four. I'm still confused with that number. I had three over the last ten years, but that was only, again, sort of violently ending their lives. So I don't know what the real number is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That was really in the line of duty.

[Steve Howard (Executive Director, VSEA)]: Yeah. Mister chairman, I think it's the provision that's in the law now for the firefighters, it's it it I think it's more a question of the complexity of those claims that are that are related to disease, that is not to say that they don't qualify, it's just those are a little bit less clear cut, so it's not an added benefit, it's the benefit that was always there. It's just that I think what the treasurer's office is saying is that those cases where it's not a scarecrow, they may need a little bit of extra help to determine whether it was job related. Sorry, Rachel.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate that. If we carved we might actually need our attorney here, which is, again, why I'm just not comfortable changing it without a more robust process. But I guess my question is, is if we make that exemption and someone gets a head injury, gets beaten in the head with a pipe at work, goes to the hospital and dies six days later, they're no longer covered? I don't think that that's Because it's an injury within seventy two hours.

[Steve Howard (Executive Director, VSEA)]: Right. So I think that would be determination that the treatment of hospital would have to make and that they may need to call in an expert to determine it. But like you said, with the example of a nurse, like that's pretty clear cut. And of course, you know, we're talking, they looked back ten years, but if you went back eleven and a half years, you would have the case of Larousseau Bell, was obviously So very clear if somebody has a disease, a Schottractive disease that they're

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: On the job.

[Steve Howard (Executive Director, VSEA)]: On the job. Just takes an added step, as I understand what the treasurer is saying, the treasurer's office is saying, just to determine that versus something like the nurses' example or the We would love to see the 25,000 added. We would love to see the bill left the way it is. We wanna see the bill sail through, as as Senator Clarkson said, and so we would be willing to to accept the exemption to get some benefit in place.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I just think the house can take a testimony on this and figure out if what makes the most sense is an exemption, or I don't even have a clear understanding from our attorney what the exemption like, I don't feel comfortable.

[Speaker 0]: So, well, there's no one on floor. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I mean, what is our problem with just letting it go? What where where why how are you why are you uncomfortable with it?

[Speaker 0]: I just basically I'm not sure. We did hardly deal shifts then.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We had a day.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Then we shipped it over and

[Speaker 0]: we'll let the house fix it. That is true.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You and I both feel that's possible?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Absolutely. And I guess it just wasn't portrayed to

[Speaker 0]: me and this man or so I folded on something that I didn't expect.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So you borrowed on something thinking that people had to die in the line of duty as opposed to might die even ten years later as a result a cancer.

[Speaker 0]: I thought it was No. That's ten years subject to Go ahead, David.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It's such a small

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: It it it the way the provision is written to clarify, but I've been unfair about it. My apologies. But it it could include years.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Or like a cancer. I believe that.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: That you get as a result of firefighting.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So I would boldly propose that we consider just letting the bill be and letting passing it and getting it to the house to address this because this is gonna take more time than we have to do it justice. Even now, we don't have the time to do it justice now.

[Speaker 0]: I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: mean, the House can take the testimony and they will probably decide to make the exemption, at least they will have taken the testimony.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And they'll hurt because I do believe workers' comp covers cancers contracted on the job that you may not die in seventy two hours of leaving the job. You may die several years late. Is correct. Yeah, you were correct.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Whichever way the committee goes, including sending it to the house, we are

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You're gonna be there. I just I think if we can get consensus around speaking to the chair and say we new information and then Oh,

[Speaker 0]: I will definitely be speaking to the chair.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I know you will be. And anyway, I just think of that if we can tee it up. This is how we work in partnership. We need both bodies, and then it'll come back to us with those changes, and then we can, having heard all the great work they did, make an incision.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I do like five o votes. Me too. So I'm sensing two people are strongly in favor of acting the way it is and then allowing our other body to adjudicate it to a greater degree. How do you feel about that, Sandra White?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah, I'm okay with that. I too had the same perspective that Senator Morley had where I hadn't fully understood that. And when we did the DPW change, I also thought that it was just if you died in the line of your work. So I also wanna look into that. And I worry that this new information could lead to some on the floor voting against it, making it a less I think this information could cause some folks to vote against it. So I would hate to hurt the bill in its ability to pass, but I don't have information about that for sure. Like, this is my first hearing of it. And I so I guess my only major concern would be if we did not move an amendment for an exemption if we ultimately were unsuccessful in passing the bill altogether out of the chamber. That would be a bummer. But I don't know how people feel about it, so I don't wanna make an assumption. So if it's I would leave it to the chair's discretion on this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I have an additional thought, which is we passed this bill out with a very strict sort of head to die on the line of duty. This expect the the the appreciation of the poor universe of that workers' comp actually has in it in terms of diseases that you could get and then die up later, not only expands this bill expands the universe of people who are covered, period. And then second, that's an additional expansion. So we're there are two we we're agreeing to the first expansion. Yes. I feel good about that. Yes. But I think the second expansion, would really like to leave leave to a body that has more time because that will have much more financial implications. That will have bigger financial implications, I think.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. If possible. It's possible.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I mean, because we as we learn more about the things we're all exposed to, how many janitors or people who work in schools are going to come back to us in ten years with, you know, in terms of workers' comp, not this bill necessarily, but there are of the the workforce sectors we identified to add here, they will all have been exposed to something bad, I am sure, that we will only just discover in the next five or ten years. I mean, it's I think David's revel David's wise reminding us this existed does ex if we add that, does expand the universe considerably. We've already expanded the workforce eligibility for in line. Yep. But that adds even more possibly exponentially. So I hope they have now financial the JFO take a peek at it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I wanna be clear that this bill isn't adding that piece. That is existing law. Yeah. And why bill doesn't cover janitors. True. And my biggest concern just, I, like I said, I feel strongly that you die because of your job. I, one of the things I think about is the nurses and and the people who might be exposed to very obvious biological hazards.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It doesn't happen often, but it can happen.

[Speaker 0]: I just

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: yeah. I I I would just really like to have the house do its due diligence on this piece and actually take testimony before we make changes. And perhaps the change they make is to to make this exemption, but that would actually be veering away from what we currently give to people? Well,

[Speaker 0]: we've expanded the universe, but I don't think this committee ever intended to expand the circumstances under which an award could be made. But we're not. Because we didn't know, well, okay. Maybe we're That's what we living give

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: to the people who currently have access to this benefit.

[Speaker 0]: Intent was

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: always to give those benefits to a wider group of people. I didn't know exactly what those were. I also didn't know that it included

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: if you die I I also didn't know that, but my intent was always to say that here's a group of people that work in dangerous jobs and have access to a death benefit. Here's a group of people that work in dangerous jobs that don't, and to align that. I also didn't know it included.

[Speaker 0]: So, Superior, yeah, you just wanna get some I didn't guess it. You just wanna get something through here. So so there's some additional benefit is what I thought I heard you say.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So yeah. I mean, in the in the best of all worlds, we would agree with senator Vyhovsky. We understand that in the situation of in the real world where we are right now, given our concern that if we complicate it too much, the bill won't go forward. We would support the exemption in order to move it forward. Okay.

[Steve Howard (Executive Director, VSEA)]: And then and then and as I think both senator Carson or Clarkson and senator Vyhovsky had said, the house will have an opportunity to testify. No. Absolutely. They don't assume. I don't know if it it does go that road. Just really want to make sure our chair talks with

[Speaker 0]: the chair firemen I on have a question for David here. The four guests that you're referencing were all firemen.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's correct.

[Speaker 0]: Right. So if you and, again, it's not a fair multiplication, but if we've added three or four other segments

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Speaking of the bill. I'm gonna go

[Speaker 0]: to the fucking bill. It's only like egg.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Very. Very. Simple.

[Speaker 0]: 16 or 20. If there's four and it was just firemen, we've added three or four other sectors. And you multiply that four by four or five, I just That's because I I think this does create an issue, and again, I'm, I guess, really glad I'm not reporting the bill because I think it will come up, and I hope Senator Vyhovsky is able to explain the process that we went through and the reason that we voted the way we did, at least some of us. I still would favor an exemption, but I will yield to the majority of the committee, and it seems to be, well, maybe it is, but Steve, I thought Steve asked for the exemption.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: He did. We're early to support it. We're good. Except it, if they did better.

[Speaker 0]: Because they could still change it over theirs. Senator White?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So I hope this card is just for firefighters, but I thought there was also a benefit if you were a police officer now.

[Speaker 0]: No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. There are federal You're absolutely right. Yes. There are federal benefits, and there's workers' comp for all of these people. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Right.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So that's

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So what is the federal benefit based also for it's because I is it that if you are only a firefighter, it's for this for the federal benefits as well? And how does that relate to the federal?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So this bill makes the state law consistent with the federal law. Yeah. So federal law right now, the state law only covers firefighters.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Mhmm.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: This this bill would make it consistent with the federal law that covers firefighters, corrections officers, and and law enforcement officers with the addition of family the family service.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And at the federal level, for those law enforcement folks, is it the seventy two hour window type thing? Is it what is it at the federal level? Because there are lots of provisions related to firefighters uniquely that they fought for for a long time as the spouse of a former firefighter because of specific health concerns related to cancers that they're getting through ventilation. So those long ranging impacts of just consistent exposure, they fought for those as a group. So do you know if the federal protections are universal in that way or are there special protections for firefighters?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I don't know. I don't know that for I'd have to look I'd have to look look look into that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Don't know insurance. That would be that would be a determining factor for me because I do think the firefighters have gone out of their way to spend time and lobbying ability and advocacy work on this specific issue, and I don't know

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: the transcendence fully to the other side.

[Speaker 0]: I forgot what it was called, but about a while ago, they had something going on with state buildings where people were breathing in air that was impacted.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, yes. We went through that. Before COVID, we had that problem.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Sorry, diagnosis. Lear today of the narcissist.

[Speaker 0]: There you go, thank you. Doctor. Ramirez. Let's go.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: And a rebuild development. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: so my question is, say that were to happen in a correctional facility. They were exposed, they caught, they came down with this disease or whatever you want to call it. Under, would we have to pay for all those if they all died or something like that, in in fifteen years from now or ten years from now or eight years from now or for one year from now?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I think it would depend on this individual's you know, on the circumstances. I would say that but

[Speaker 0]: Oh, go ahead.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Okay. Yeah. Let me just sorry. I would say that in particular case of correctional officers, I think it is very similar to the to what firefighters experience. If you look at the research and what you've heard me say, maybe you haven't heard me say it, but life expectancy of a correctional officer is 59. I didn't know that. Normal life expectancy is is, you know, in the seventies and PTSD rates and all that stuff. So the similar exposure, different exposure than what firefighters have.

[Speaker 0]: No, no, I was just trying to

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: think of an example, Steve, where

[Speaker 0]: it may increase risk a lot, potentially. I'm not saying that's up to the treacherous hops

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: to figure that all out, but I'm just trying to think this would be

[Speaker 0]: broad, it seems like to me. From what I understood, I I did not realize that.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yeah. It's it's the same benefit as what firefighters would receive. Yeah. But I do think at this point, it's really important to keep it very clear and simple, and so I agree. That's why we would enforce the exemption.

[Speaker 0]: That's why

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Of course, we would be happiest to go past as as you passed it out.

[Speaker 0]: But I don't have it. If if If it is simple, it does go over to the house, they do take all the testimony on it, then it's gonna come back here.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. Yeah. We got

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a second bite at this house.

[Speaker 0]: It's not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: like this is happening.

[Speaker 0]: They don't come back here if they change it. Don't know what they I've just lost them on the huge shooters here. Oh. For who and what the BSEA

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: BSEA wants? Either way, doing what

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: wants. Right! You know what?

[Speaker 0]: And you're gonna have to look stronger. Yeah. I am.

[Adam Norton (Strategic Analyst, VSEA)]: For the record, Adam Norton, strategic analyst for BSCA, to answer Senator White's question, it does, and the federal benefit does cover cancers and other things, as long as it was exposure occurred within fifteen years, or death occurred within fifteen years of the last day of public service.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay, and that's for all folks, including, oh, interesting. Wow. That's a good day.

[Speaker 0]: Expensive.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So that's why I think we should pass it as it is, not the house deal with it. It's there's more here, and there are inter what we haven't had time to do is look at the overlay of benefits.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: There are

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: federal ones. There are state ones. And even just within the state, have workers' comp. And we have not the others that we've identified with them. We don't have time to do that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Can just make a suggestion? I'm happy for us to just move it as it is if that's the easiest possible pathway. But I do wonder when it gets to the floor. I have concerns because I don't think that these are unheard in here, and they're certainly not gonna be unheard on the floor. So if it looks like we are not able to get the votes to pass the bill as is, I think we should have a further discussion as a committee.

[Speaker 0]: I don't

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: think that's going be a problem. And I think it's easy enough to say, and Tanya is certainly in this position to say, we didn't have the time to address the wide ranging ramifications of adding this at this point. We took this off the last, fairly late in the game. Well, Well, we do. We took it off the other day.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Just don't think that's a compelling argument to It any of our

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: may not be, but but that's a fact. And Yeah. And and the kindness of the of the and then the generosity of the chair, we took it up because it mattered to somebody. That, you know, we're allowed to say it, you know, that we, that there were enough implications that needed further explanation and further investigation, and that we didn't have the time to do that at this point. I think it's fair that we ran out of grant space. Had to get it out Friday.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Mister Chittenden, I may, one suggestion I might have is if it does appear to be an issue on the floor, I'm the sure the committee could offer an amendment Oh, sure. On the floor that would that would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And I'd be happy to do the expansion at at stop the expansion. It's just the following.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: It's be the exemption

[Speaker 0]: for the It is. For the. Well, it helps.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. An exemption for For

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: the folks who are not already receiving benefit that goes beyond the line of duty.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: If the exemption would carve out the category that the treasurer's office says is sometimes marginal, which is the Nazis. And if you did Zap or just the expand the expansion, you could do that on the floor if that looked like it was causing an issue.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Just trying to get the. I am sure. Well, why would we exempt now people who may get contracted illness at work and and end up suffering and dying from it later, why would we exempt them now?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: We wouldn't would I the only thing we wouldn't wanna do that, but what we do understand is that if it creates if it creates an obstacle for the bill's passage, we would wanna get the the underlying benefit in place.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I will say I was just asked over there why we didn't also include disability as a payout.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And and by the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: you're already. Out. They're over there trying to make it even bigger.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well and and that's what I said when you were gone is there are a lot of financial overlays here that we are not fully clear on. And that, I think, just this bill deserves to have all of those financial aspects that that come into play It's explored, and we have not had that chance. I mean, disability is another good example. There's workers' comp, there's disability, there's federal, there's state, there's there are a bunch

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: of others. And that's why I think sending it to the house and asking them to do that exploration is why we have two chambers. And it ultimately what comes back feels like something not everyone can support, then we make the decision at that point. But at this point, I just don't think we have the time to solve this by floor amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I guess it does reflect back on me to some extent. You

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: were kind enough to take it up at the last minute. It is okay for us to not We

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: all messed up sometimes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. We haven't messed up at all. I didn't

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: say messed up. I said missed stuff.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's why we have another chamber. That's why we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: have another chamber because we have clearly identified stuff that needs further explanation. So go do it.

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: This is like step one. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I think it's step one.

[Speaker 0]: Do you get the sense that a probe's gonna load it out favorably?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think so. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Did you explain

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that I did. It doesn't just was got clearly a and I-

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Mine was very clear that it includes And I even gave the example of a nurse getting hepatitis and thyroid cancer. And what I was asked is why didn't you also include a benefit if someone's permanently disabled on the job? So-

[Speaker 0]: because we don't have enough zeros in the bank.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What I said was I think that that would be unlikely to fly through the government operations committee, though I would personally support it. I don't think we should be expanding this universe right now given the conversation happening next door

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: at this very moment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I I do. I'm so impressed you were absolutely quiet. I know.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Wasn't controversial. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: there's no real Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I'll make the decision. We'll let it go as is, and we'll pay for it later.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I mean, it comes

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: comes back and may have a different view, then then we can

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We can reign it in. Because my guess is the house's heart is very generous, and that they may come back and get more expanded than we had imagined, but we'll see. Because the other thing

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that, because I I didn't wanna leave when I left, but I I think firefighters have them far exposed to toxins in a way that these groups are not.

[Speaker 0]: Senator White, we need that. I don't think you

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: can just assume that each of these groups is gonna have four a year. Same rate.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. You know what? As we learn more about the environment in which we work and the buildings in which we work, You never know.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Get Well, right. My question the volley is broken today.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Well, I guess we're done with I S89 for the don't know if it'll be on the floor tomorrow or be on Lotus. Guess it's on Lotus. So that's where we are, Steve. Thank you

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: very much for taking the time. I appreciate it. We're going upstairs to

[Speaker 0]: talk about the pay act.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, we're doing a pay act this year?

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. We always do a pay

[David Scherr (Deputy State Treasurer)]: it's gonna come it's gonna have to be finished in the senate because we're still negotiating.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, joy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The crack

[Speaker 0]: in the senate.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Fun ideas.

[Speaker 0]: So let's move to h five zero eight. This is the first in charter, which has to do with

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm still waiting on a faded language from Charter. Oh. I haven't seen anything. And

[Speaker 0]: all we had was that one paragraph on page 23 of the bill, which said that they could do it from time to time, change the boundaries.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But if you remember when we went through the new language that we thought was okay, we discovered that it didn't do what Burlington wanted it to. Yeah. Because it wouldn't allow them necessarily to do it.

[Speaker 0]: Is that the five year thing?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So we got rid of the five year thing because Burlington agreed that that isn't really what they were trying to do. And then the way Tucker worded the new language that I thought was fine, but then when he went through it, I out loud, what I realized is it it could prohibit them the way he worded it from doing it every ten years before the census came out. Okay. So he had to go make some other tweaks that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't have yet.

[Speaker 0]: Well, with that in mind, he's coming back in at 02:30 for the Bennington charter concerning the town manager. You remember we heard from Representative Pissonoff on Thursday, I think it was. It's a one page bill. We still haven't heard from Senator Cortron. He's on the agenda today, but I don't if he's going to make it. But anyway, Tucker will be in at 02:30, and maybe we can tackle both of these at that point. As Move one, move both, move none. So why don't we take another twenty nine break, and we'll be back about 02:20, 02:25.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Mr. Chair?

[Speaker 0]: Five. And we're off. Almost.