 Welcome back to Senate Education. It's two o'clock and we are shifting gears to S-284 and actually relating to use of electronic devices and digital and online products in schools. The bill that was entered by Senator Williams and others. And we've been having this conversation. We had the Attorney General in. We've heard from some school personnel and administrators. And we thought this is a public health issue. And we wanted to hear from our Commissioner, Dr. Mark Levine. So thank you for joining us. I'm just looking at Senator Williams. Is there anything that you want to say before we get started about the bill at this point? Okay. So thank you very much for joining us. Well, thank you for having Commissioner Mark Levine Department of Health. And that slide shows. Okay. I can provide my comments to you after. So thanks for inviting me to testify. This is clearly an important topic. Perhaps your previous testimony indicated to you it's a controversy as well. I will tell you that the testimony I'm going to give reflects my own knowledge in the area. So I'm going to start with my Department of Health family and child health division, particularly. And we have closely collaborated with colleagues in the Department of Mental Health. So this is sort of a consensus opinion. Okay. So to start with, we do appreciate the legislature's paying attention to the mental health of kids use. And for acknowledging the increasing complexity of social media, the internet and screen time in the lives of their waters in general. So appreciate the acknowledgement that we all have a role play in this, whether it's schools themselves, whether it's families, whether it's health care providers, whether it's communities. We're all in this together. Completely support the idea of minimizing and reducing exposure to social media while in school through school policies that support educational focus. But we also feel that this bill may be a bit heavy handed and unrealistic in that regard. It's important that we recognize mental health. Suicide ideation are very complex and multifaceted. And I fear that at times we're conflating social media and emergency room visits or suicidal ideation. Because the work we've done in the Department of Health and Department of Mental Health indicates it's much more complex than that. And we would hate that we would leave with an overly simplistic approach that one bill or remedy or real crisis in our youth. Public messaging or legislation that is someone alarmist or fear based. Like smartphones are destroying, you know, the next generation of our country. Doesn't reflect the science that actually can actually make families and educators feel a little overwhelmed and with our hope. And I think if we look at how youth might perceive it, it could be a bit looked at by them as a bit accusatory and maybe disadvantage. Complicated issues like always in complicated problems require sometimes complicated solutions that are precise. They may not be overly conducive to overly broad and reactive policy solutions. I also want to acknowledge the difference between educational platforms and social media. Because after station needs to be clear. Educational platforms in the public school setting are very widely used. And by many very widely accepted. And we need to not sacrifice their value. While we're trying to work on the aspects of social media that might be more that you mentioned. I'm here to deny that social media doesn't come with its own set of problems that the legislation acknowledges quite well. I'm just here to say that social media is here and it's perhaps not all that. There are protective factors that social media can provide for adolescents, such as social support. Connect with like-minded peers. Connections with friends and family, civic engagement, planning events, building larger networks based on interests. As you know, we do a lot of surveying through a number of tools, the best known of which is the use risk behavior survey. And we do find that some aspects of social media can be protective to support children and youth who you might be concerned have what we would term marginalized identities. Whether they be in the BIPOC community in the LGBTQ plus community. And where we see alarming rates much higher than in the average person rates of social isolation, mental health challenges, experiencing loneliness. I mean, that's just where the evidence is. And we know that LGBTQ youth have considerably higher mental health struggles and higher rates of suicidal ideation. Sometimes they find hope and community online. The emerging Academy of Pediatrics notes that interventions must center the child or adolescent on providing support for autonomy, advancing skills and digital citizenship and literacy, supporting self-regulation and encouraging parental role and open-minded conversation. So the goal being support and empower youth. If we deleted all social media, we will not have solved the youth mental health crisis and would likely further disenfranchise and potentially endangerment youth. Now there are, moving away from the A&P, there are healthy pro-social ways to be on social media. We have to prioritize the youth perspective with an open mind and help kids and parents understand their agency in controlling what they see on social media and in controlling what is private and what is not. Now a lot of the public speaking I do, I very much harp on the social isolation theme. In public health circles, social isolation is the root of all the things we see that are going on for people in our population, no matter what age. So myriad public health problems emanating from social isolation. We also know it's a very good predictor of suicidal ideation. So while I worry about youth becoming isolated due to over reliance on smartphones and social media, thinking they are connected where in fact they're avoiding connection because they're doing it all electronically. It's also true that social media can provide for many youth an element of social connectedness that they otherwise wouldn't have at all. Because the social media use are linked with various factors and highly complex. Population level correlations of time spent on social media and mental health are very small. Much of the research has limitations. It doesn't control for other factors that might be child or home related. That explain the link between social media and well being children. The results are often mixed and they don't consistently show a causal relationship cause affection. We also know it teens you social media and how how they do use it really determines its impact. And there's a fair amount of research going on, which really looks at how much time is spent on platforms. Is it used in the evening, is it related to poor sleep. Is it passively used or more actively used in terms of the participation of the individual. How much controls one inserting on content that's delivered. For instance, turning off likes refreshing the algorithm this engaging from content that impacts mood or mental health. I would like to see us focus more on health education health education, which of course you would expect someone in public health, say. So my educator hat that I had for many years in health care and medicine and still we're building our children's critical thinking skills. Just like most important to me to think to me and dealing with medical students and residents was, can they critically reason do they have critical thinking skills. I agree there's a need for education around the risks of social media and online access, and I do believe it's happened, although probably not consistent. For months health education standards support the development of skills necessary to adopt practice and maintain health enhancing behaviors that wouldn't sure they have the skills to navigate these complexities. And I think if we could lean into this that would be great. Strength based language and promoting opportunities for adults in the school buildings to navigate conversations and authentically engage with our youth. And then, looking to what national organizations have said, in terms of these organizations that are devoted to children, child health, mental health and well being. I find one that suggests outright banning social media. They do offer guidance on how to move forward thoughtfully. And we can link you to the American American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Academy of Children and adolescent psychiatrists. These offers that social media advisory language and relevant resources. I want to speak about our surgeon general of the United States. In his 2023 advisory call to action, which was a very important call to action regarding the effects of social media on youth mental health. He dedicated for gaining a fuller understanding of the full impact of social media use, maximizing the benefits, minimizing the harms of social media platforms and creating safer, healthier online environments to protect children. He didn't call for it all a band. Also, coming as a public health official to you, you would be shocked if I didn't mention the word equity and looking at that through that kind of lens. So there can be unintentional impacts, which I think you've debated in this committee already regarding the use of social media to communicate with families. School closings and emergency other immediate needs concerns about the so-called opt out of digital curriculum for families or teachers, which probably could be viewed as a inequitable practice for diverse sets of learners. Concerns about teachers capacity to be able to ensure their students have the resources they need to learn in the additional stress this may cause the students. Sort of a standard where a teacher might need potentially to have two sets of lessons plans. That might be kind of hard to implement or overly burdensome, but I'm not here to speak for teachers. That's just our thoughts. Libraries may offer digital access to books or audio books and taking away that access could limit taking implementing legislation could limit this access for some children. And it could result in harsh and inconsistent reactive disciplinary actions against students that might have lasting consequences. I won't even begin to speculate on impact of sort of a rigid policy that might impact teachers and administrators as enforcers. We know what that looks like with vaping crisis. And it's not a comfortable place for them to be. Yet they play that role. Advert one by stress. I should also go discuss what we in mental health and public health can do in a positive way to bring to this conversation. Our department and its family and child health division and the Department of Mental Health would be glad to enter into partner with the agency of education to develop sample policy. Protocol about use of personal devices and social media in learning environments. Based on evidence based practice and in partnership with a AP. School nurses school leadership. Something we're kind of familiar with doing and many other topic areas. Same groups of us would be glad to partner with a way to support schools and apply health education standards to social media internet use screen time. Our family child health division is currently supporting a year long quality improvement project around social media counseling and support in pediatric primary care. And we're partnering with the child health improvement process. Starting in fall. And we've been involved in the planning process in this as well. So in conclusion. We're not sure it feels realistic for the response to be to take it all away. And I think we would be better off focusing on applying guidelines for usage. For instance, no cell phone use in class or follow ways, whatever that kind of a protocol. Then providing comprehensive education about the risk of the internet and social media. And what healthy and safe usage books. The issue of collecting data on children and youth should be addressed at a higher level in terms of developers and regulators and not at the school or district level. So restrictions and regulations on the companies and platforms and creators do need to be established. And I think we've all seen the recent news that indicates that these are being discussed in Washington. And here in one pillage. If we want to focus on positive health outcomes for youth, then we need to give them support and guidance to make healthy choices by focusing on positive relationships, healthy supportive environments, encouragement and emotional growth. And in the spirit of a developmentally informed child and family centered approach. The onus should be on the problems and parrot in the platforms, not within the child or the youth. Questions. So, can we get copy of your. Yes, I will have sent within. Okay. And, you know, the whole bill doesn't mention Danny. Subjects. I've heard from a lot of teachers that are some are going to testify that sweet. If they had the phone away from the student that they would take more attention. There are some schools of the month already have the opto policies. But I appreciate your willingness to work to develop educational five years. Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, family child health within the realm of public health. That's what we do. We are so partnered with the education community. This would just be yet another aspect of something so unique and all of that. Well, so this is this is clearly where we're at. And the same type of mental health. I mean, it is so real. We've said in our casual comments before the tape was turned on and this is this is large. This is huge. It is so multifaceted. Passive confidence. And in many ways it intersects with crisis and suicidal ideation as well as suicide itself. But so many things. Thank you for your question. You might say a couple of words about what the agency is doing right now. Related to public health. Sort of like information campaign around this. Are you engaged in a way that you see commercials all the time. But smoking. Is the agency info. In the suicide aspect. Okay. Sure. As it relates to the digital devices. Well, a lot of this relates to digital devices, but as it relates to resources and people can draw upon, which could then direct them for help. So we have the, obviously the emergency call numbers. Yes, but then we have more importantly the facing suicide vt. Which is sort of a water's own lived experience. Survivors of suicide attempts as well as family members of those who unfortunately have some conditions. I mean, that has so many topics and issues that people can relate to on it. And resources to direct them to. We also have a fair amount of media coverage on just mental health in general and accessing them of resources. It's a little harder to say we focus exclusively on electronic devices that that obviously could be the next generation of media that we do. And you're very familiar with what you actually won't be familiar with what we do with substance use with youth, because unless I underestimated you, you're not on the websites that this material is on. You're not on the social media platforms that this materialism are used around all the time, and they quit at very high levels. Whether it's keeping, whether it's our cannabis use, whether it's substance use general. Back of industry you name it. I have no reason to believe they would be a different. They, they, they see the problems in their space. They understand and know, and maybe they don't always see the problem in themselves. Until it gets out of the road of it, but they see it for sure. So one, one thing I heard you mentioned was your willingness to partner with the DC of education. Yes, great model policy that we could then press before to our schools as a, if you're going to move in this direction. Here's a model policy that you might want to adopt something like that. Is that what you're thinking about it? I've gone down the road path a bit already. But yes, we would certainly be on that pathway. So anything else that you can be, that you're thinking about it should be on our minds and our agenda as it relates to social media. Yeah, so, so I mentioned the three organizations and the search and generals report and they'll be links. You get after this meeting that I would advise you look at with regard to this topic. Okay. Because these are youth and mental health directed funds. And then you also mentioned partnering with the agency of education others to look at those health education standards as it relates again to using. Using this. I don't think anybody's against. No, yeah, I'm just trying to be against any of this. It's just trying to, I think, navigate pathway that isn't sort of all or none. It isn't ignoring it or overly heavy handed, but that tries to forge a path forward that empowers you empowers educators. Acknowledges that some of this is like at the regulatory level, or some of these platforms, etc, and it's happening in one pillar in Washington as we speak, whether we vote wanted to do in schools or God. I'm just trying to bring all that together. I think, you know, I don't recall middle of the road because that middle of the road it's it's just proactive in a slightly different direction. Please. Thank you for your testimony. So I guess just a general comments. I think we've been big support of the education piece that you were describing and, you know, working with a we to get that education out there so that teachers can explain to kids and the dangers of, you know, dangers of certain aspects of social media and so on. I think that's that's a good idea. And, you know, regarding the phones and general. I mean, Yeah, yeah, you know, it's, I mean, my belief on it is that you're at school, the phones should be in the locker. And that's really just condensed. My, my dense thoughts on the issue of having a constituent who also happens to be my daughter who agrees with that. Yeah, we don't like to make a move. But no, I didn't bring this up and she was like, why don't we just, just require us to put them in the lockers and it seems like middle of the road. But, but her set here does not require that. No, no, okay, so yeah, I think. Yeah, and I get it's dependent on the school district and what they're requiring and I get there can be some challenges, you know, like maybe with after school programs and kids going from one place to another but I don't. I mean, I'm just trying to think of different aspects of it but it's, you know, the phone should be in the lockers during the school day. That's, you know, that's right. No, I'm with you, you know, when we talk about vaping. Remember the jewel devices. You know, so the jewel devices. They didn't have to go to the bathroom to use them. They're backpack, which is by their chair. They would like to lean over to get some papers out of the backpack and take a quick hit on their jewel device. The same thing will happen with the phone. If the phone is there, I gotta text someone. And there were also putties that were designed such a way that you could take a hit of whatever the thing is. And I guess one other thing, I mean, put it this precisely in the comments, but we all know what the key kids away from drug campaigns, the impact of just say no. And Nancy Reagan and all that, you know, it was like, those were things, you know, can't just tell you, don't do this. And then expect the enforcement to take over and nobody do anything. And so I don't, I don't want to totally equate what we're talking about here to that, but a lot of it is sort of like if you just tell them it's bad. And you say you can't do it in school. And you don't have anything constructive built around it to empower them in ways that can be protected as well. It might have the same kind of reaction. Speaking of constituents. So we need the rest of the story and wondering what your daughter's recommendation is. Yes. I brought it up to her and her recommendation was why don't you just require. It's also my. You didn't claim it for yourself a moment ago. She's going to watch. She needs to weigh in on the social media part. Yeah. Thank you. I was listening to, I think I've heard some suggestions, sort of subtle suggestions, but varying from platform regulation to educating parents, giving kids opportunities so that they can avoid isolation, which could be a handful of things. I think that I sort of focused or landed on bullying, hazing and harassment, because that's something that comes up in this committee quite a bit and we're always struggling with what to do with how to handle it. Any, Mr. Republic, do you have suggestions for us or strategies or anything that could be useful? So this is where it's another sort is because the same community of youth that might say, this is leading to bullying and harassment, ruining my life. So, other members of that same community are saying, this is giving me the connectivity that I really need, because my community, whether it's sexual orientation or racial or whatever. It's very challenging. And that's where I think the precision of regulatory and policy change can be helpful, as opposed to perhaps an umbrella to regulatory change. And so the nuances of that, I think we're happy to work in a constructive way. I think we can ever make the school that community again so that when they're not tied up with the phones that they can actually communicate with each other and, you know, have lunch with each other, because they tend to be on the phone when they have free time. Yeah, that's a culture thing, right? It's a culture. It's not the schools. Right. Probably, it's actually, it's everybody. I mean, we create that environment for them, but, you know, sometimes we don't know what's good for us. I completely endorse that. Yeah, I mean, I've had to visit a lot of schools this point this job over these years. It's incredible what someone can do with that. But it's also incredible the problems they're encountering. It seems like every positive step that leads to progress, something else happens and we're taking some facts. So it's really a culture change kind of thing, which is really hard to do. Because it's the culture they see in our schools, in their own homes and in their communities. And they can still, they can still do that after school. Yes. They can do it on the bus. Sure. I was just going to follow up with that. I see, I think that is a problem with the grownups of the adults. Yeah, we need to invest in more after school programs, invest in our community partners, invest in sports, music. I mean, every kid should be doing an extracurricular, right? Whether you're a great basketball player or not, you should be given the opportunity to do that. I know in Burlington, we used to have a space called, I think it was 250 or 450 main and it was underneath the Memorial Auditorium. And it was this really cool music and hard space and kids would go there and spend, you know, the weekend and after school and evenings. And it was, I mean, talk about you're breaking down isolation because everyone's in there working together and having a good time. And it's gone because that building is condemned. But those are the kinds of spaces that we need to create for kids in our communities. Is that the high school underneath? Right on Main Street. It's so great. But I mean, those are things that we have to do, you know, kids can't really do that. So, you know, And this committee doesn't hear from me that often. But this is what I talked about in other committees because whole Icelandic model, the after school activities that we charge and ramp up with Governor and Senator Sanders during the pandemic and And that's how we combat social isolation. And that's how we answer the one question on the youth risk behavior survey that sets me most, which is close to 50% of our youth say they don't feel like that matter to their community. 50%. It's a little less. So it's not half but it's so close to that. They don't feel like they matter to the community, but the adults both don't see that they don't care who they are and know who they are. And so the programs like we're talking about here, built in whole state because they're used and endorsed and driven their voices there. But beyond that, their adults in the community are creating opportunities that wouldn't have existed. And maybe the other committee members seen that survey. Where can we get to the results of that survey. The wire. Yes. Yeah. Oh yeah. We're going to switch gears. Mr. Anderson. Thank you. Thank you. I wouldn't want to have to tell her that I was Senator Campion. His funny is that she just texted and said really helps. I'll take it the next subject is not on this. Yeah, thank you very much, Dr. Good to see you. Nice to see you. Nice to see you all for the record for Anderson. Let's say the council. We are looking at S to 20. You're. And what we have here in our folders, we have response from. The original response is Catherine. Thank you again for that. It looks like you have very nicely presented us with this sort of decision points. That is great. So you have a summary of the sections of the bill. Put in at size and the plainly written language is possible. So they can take a decision on each provision of the bill based on the recommendations you received so far. Great. So the committee is comfortable with it. I'll work through the summary if there's specific questions about the bill contents dive into it. You have the recommendations from the state librarian. Side desk. And some of your form decisions along the way. And we have to speak that very. Actually, having had the privilege of meeting in person. There she is. Hello. Hello. Yeah. Here we all are. So the intent section is not included in summary. I would like to briefly note that's because the decisions you make in the sections that follow impact. Whether that is even necessary to the bill. So as I noted in the initial walk through some of the factual findings and the expression of the tent relate to potential court review at a later date on some of the constitutional issues that might arise. So if those provisions are removed with the bill, you might not even want to proceed with an intense section. The first chunk of the bill that we'll look at is section two, which relates to the licensing of electronic literary products. The, you know, simple way to explain what this is doing is that it is going to govern the relationship with the publishers and public libraries in the state with respect to the licensing of things like audio books. So it adds a new sub chapter to 22 USA chapter three that establishes prohibited provisions for those contracts. And the prohibitive provisions include disproportionate pricing between what is offered to libraries and what is otherwise offered to the public. And then restrictions on things like licensing the products to library users. Allowing electronic literary materials to borrowers or to through interlibrary loan systems and a number of licenses that a library may acquire. In general, it's targeting contracts that attempt to restrict the duration, for example, of borrowers temporary license to use a book or an audio book from a library. Then goes on to define the use of the prohibitive provision of the contract as an unfair to deceptive trade practice pursuant to the state's consumer protection laws. So, section two, in the original bill. Please, we're going to help me out in terms of explaining reading assistance. No, I just go ahead. I was wondering, would you prefer running the whole thing first and then having us comment at the end or comment along the way. However, the committee would like to operate. I'm happy to answer questions. I just, if it's right, periodically just sort of check in, because like, for example, this section is going to be this is the section that you mentioned early on. I think it's going to be a little bit. It's exciting. But I just want to know what was in section Q versus what this proposal is. It's so section two is exactly the same. Oh, yeah. Guys, guys. Okay, yes. So no changes have been made in the bill at all at this point. We're kind of confused and perhaps the state like very will be able to chime in with that. I feel as though the language in the bill was sort of lifted out of the report that was shared. And but now it seems as though the department of libraries isn't in favor of it. So I guess I just need some clarity as to seems like there was a report that said do this and now we're being like, don't do this. So maybe misinterpreted, but please, if you don't mind jumping in. Sure. That's a good question and I'm happy to clarify. Capture it down the state librarian and the working groups, a different entity from the department. And that's one really important thing to call out. So as the chair of the working group, my role was to represent, I felt my role was to represent the will of the group. And the working group recommended that the legislature look at this issue, but we were not the working group was not prescriptive and how it would be addressed. So I think this is absolutely this section section 162 on page five, it's absolutely a response of the legislature, we didn't say what to do because we didn't have expertise in that. Upon looking at the actual language and I've had a while Mr. Anderson I haven't met before I didn't see the language just before you saw it introduced and I believe my comments at the time were kind of well Nelly like this is a lot. And it may be, I'm not confident I understand exactly what would, what the results of this language with these, because it's in this public library bill but the way that it's written. If any contract. If the public library bill that there are school libraries mentioned and the intent includes academic libraries as well so there's a little bit of confusion about would this really justify to the public library setting. It would impact even the consumers ability to get materials if the if the vendors not willing to send us the distributors not willing to sell us materials in public libraries for the same price that you get them at home. So that's where I was saying, could we maybe slow this portion down and work on a longer term, right solution. I believe I'm considered one of the co lead sponsors, but I'd like to speak to what the other be sponsored. I'm not necessarily way to the section. Is it your opinion or your suggestion that we strike section 162. I would strike this but I would welcome looking at this for future legislation and trying to develop something that could address this very important concern of the pricing and the unfair practice of pricing. There is a problem here. I'm just not sure that this is this exact language is the solution. Yeah, does anyone oppose to us taking out at this point can always return to it another day. But it looks like we'll strike section to less. Yeah, please. I was ready to pivot already the sections 335 335 but beautiful. Okay. I work. I love your efficiency. This is, you'll see this. I wouldn't need you to go to but close camera. I don't need that because I don't want to. I'll take a look. I'll take a look at section 205. This relates to the selection and retention of library materials. And primarily what this is concerned with is the reconsideration to the removal of books from public libraries. These sections propose to amend various provisions of title 22 require public libraries to adopt a policy for the selection and retention of library materials. Those policies must comply with the first amendment and certain federal and state laws relating to, for example, not discrimination. The Department of Libraries in a later section is granted discretionary authority to adopt model policies for selection and retention. So the way that this may work, for example, is that the Department of Libraries would adopt a model policy governing selection and retention. And then the public libraries can simply adopt that model policy. It has their own. And this would govern, for example, the procedures for how the public could request that material be removed from a library. And then the standards comply with the first amendment that would be applied in reviewing whether that material should be reconsidered. So two people walk into a library. The library has an autobiography of Joe Biden and an autobiography of Donald Trump. And those two people, respectively, want to remove one or the other. And this kind of puts in a process so that libraries can assess and say, and then sort of make a decision based on first amendment rights, etc. Right. In compliance with first amendment jurisprudence. Okay. Questions. Yeah, please. Yeah, I'm not quite sure about format. A lot of our conversation here is about local control. And I'm just kind of wondering what we're solving here with this language. I just want to see if anybody on the committee wants to weigh in on that first or the council. There still is an element of local control here. The backbone of these sections is ensuring that the library has a procedure in place for review library or the Vermont guidance guidelines. The specific public library, they do not have to use enter the model policies. They could adopt general policy provided that it can flies with the first amendment and any applicable state or federal laws. So that's creating a model policy that can or can not be anything short of that. Yes, the base requirement is just that a public library have a policy in place that will be followed when they're reviewing a request for reconsideration. Yeah, I mean, I had to speak to the sort of maybe the Genesis of this or part of the Genesis, which was I originally wanted to write a fan of both fans. But that was my, I really wanted to do that because it seemed like a great idea and I was all excited about it. And then Catherine and I had many long conversations and she expressed to me the importance of, you know, not banning free speech basically. So we, this is sort of, you know, if you want to call it a happy medium middle ground, but we decided that set of fanny book fans a look at how these robust policies in place to make sure that there was a standard process state around how what it would look if someone wants to ban a book and what libraries have to do to make sure that their collection is sound and safe. Just a clarification how in this language. So, you know, I'm looking at line 10 on page eight public libraries will adopt the policies and the selections we consider the library materials. And it complies with dot dot dot state laws for pivoting discrimination in place of accommodation. How does that. How does that play out. What does that look like. If you can you provide more clarification on how does it enforce or what, what it really means, as far as the adoption of the policy or some of the specific references to state federal law. As an example, but yeah, can you just provide a little more information on this. So I'll start with the easy answer, which is that there's no enforcement built into these provisions. And there's no mandatory oversight. So for example, the Department of libraries is not going to be reviewing a library's policy to ensure that it complies with the first amendment. So perhaps an agreed member of the public who is upset with the way the policy was applied to a specific request for reconsideration could bring a complaint, but there's also no provision in here for a private right of action to be brought against a library. So I'm sure you're familiar with from Senate judiciary. Yeah, so. Okay, so, I mean, the state laws. And discrimination, for example, already do apply to places of public accommodation. And so, and I want them to obviously, but are we just, are we with this language. Aside from requiring every library to adopt a model policy. Are we just restating what's already long in the system. They have to comply with the first amendment as well without us stating it here expressly. So, yes. Okay, the only operative provision here is the requirement for the policy to be adopted. Thank you. Who's the who's the intended adjudicator with the select board, the local select board. In this case, it would be the trustees directors or managers of the public library, depending on what we're talking about, whether it's a municipal library or a municipally funded, you know, association library. It's providing free public library services to a community. Senator Williams, you go ahead. If I can just share quickly share some context for this. Public libraries are currently supposed to all have selection development and reconsideration policies, and an informal quick survey shows that they do not. Their policies are already supposed to be in confirmation with the current laws in our state, including their places of public accommodation. So all of the categories of individuals who are protected in the public accommodation lot. It is important that the policies meet that law and also the first amendment they do not they're very confused they've been asking the department for model policies. And they want to have the principles of intellectual freedom and have the book on both the former president and the current president on the shelf. And books on diverse religions, you know, including Christianity they they want to do these things, but they need a little bit of support. They still would have local control. We would simply have the authority to develop the model policy and share with them. They could quickly adopt that or they could use it as a starting point to adopt their own. They don't have to adopt the model policies so I want to clarify. There is a degree to which it is a little bit redundant because they should already be following this but the reality is, these are libraries led by community members who may not have experience in the law and they may not realize what applies to them so Thank you. Yeah, so you know how about here so kind of leading to what Senator Sheehy said. So is there is it is there a Vermont constitutional provision that applies here, because we're this month's as fast as that's going to become a block to the moon statue. So we're talking about preparing a policy that municipal or local letters can use. So, are we mandating are we. Okay, to the extent that there are any Vermont constitutional provisions that would govern for example speech rights associated with this process. Those constitutional provisions are going to apply without specifically calling. And this will not include specific references to those versions not going to exclude them from any constitutional analysis in the future. So we're giving them guidance. We would be the department would give guidance. The department would work with the local but the state library association just engage the community in the process of making the model policy. But I also want to be sure that the one element that the reconsideration policy, the policy for retention includes maintaining the public's right to petition the library. We don't want to as Senator Hewlett was saying we don't want to cut off that avenue to people. Some of the other bills may not even do that but they are called like the ban on book bans and it may be in this no more but we want to be sure that the public that they see something on the shelf that they're concerned about they go through that normal process that's something that we do in school libraries and public libraries. We want to uphold that right to petition in many cases, the municipal library, but even when it's an incorporated library it's still their town's library so we want that dialogue to continue in the community that's that's a healthy discourse, but within a framework so that the institutions of the libraries are protected, so the staff have guidance, and the trustees have a kind of a roadmap on how do we do that. What's the formal process for it. 66. This relates to the confidentiality of library patron records, and what this would do is lower the age from 16 to 12 for purposes of confidentiality of the patron records. So under current law, patron records have mandatory confidentiality built into them, and those records cannot be disclosed to any person except to the subdivision parents or legal guardians of a person 16 years of age, or younger. So we can lower that to 12. And in case it comes up there is a private right of action built into this set of laws so that a library patron whose information has been disclosed to any other party can sue public library questions. I'm really challenged for this. You guys know that. And, you know, to me it's not about young kids seeking gender affirming information or whatever it's actually quite the opposite it's, you know, kids it might be researching suicide methods or that help us, you know, fall making methods, you know, the imagination just runs wild right for parents not to be involved in that, you know, I grow challenges with that because there's certain things parents need to be engaged with to remove that I think is this problem. There's always exceptions there's households that don't have that there's abuse going on, etc, etc, but I feel that we also have a number of mechanisms in place in the state that address that scenario, and then would remove the capability of an abusive parent or wherever the relationship is from, you know, this from this protect them in this type of scenario, check the child. But, but you know, for the other 98% of population, I feel that parents were made engaged. So, so to me that this one section makes the bill a deal killer. That's, you know, doesn't matter, you know, what we think, you know, we can easily be outboded on on that aspect, but that particular sections completely trolls. So if you want to add anything about the process or because, yeah, take for example suicide question. I think that came up in the discussions. It did. And, Senator, I really appreciate your sharing where your trouble with this section comes from and actually the matter of suicide is one of the reasons that we in the working group have recommended lowering the age. So, for example, what we recommended that specific age we ended up on as a group consensus of the working group was 12, specifically because in Vermont law current children for 12 years of age can independently seek mental health help. There may be parents who don't want them to seek mental health, who don't believe in mental health health, who have concerns with psychiatric care. If the child knows that they are having some issues and is trying to, they're trying to address that and learn about that and to follow the path to get some help. And even in a situation when I was here last week with Mary Danko from the Fletcher Free Library or two weeks ago, she was using examples of kids she's seen who are in abusive situations who come to the library who ask questions and learn information. And if they're abusing, if they're abusive parent knew that they were doing that the child might not be able to take the steps to get that help. That's what I mentioned about exceptions. There's always exceptions. I get that. But this is not a rule, an exception based rule. This is a rule. Well, it's really, the recommendation is based on lowering the age to gather information to match the age that the child is currently empowered to make autonomous medical decisions on the topics. If you want to visit Health and Welfare. No, we have a, we have a, there's a bill about STD, who had a great STD, that's 150 prevention. You know, it's the same concept just because it's done somewhere else and some other time doesn't mean that, you know, I can't speak up for the constituents who are quite upset about this concept. And I appreciate that. But as far as how did we, how did the working group come to this recommendation. It was really with the idea that if there is that child. For most children, I talked to an 11 year old, not my child, but a child I live with, and I asked her, who do you want your dad to see your library card. And she said, of course he checks the books out with me, we always go together. Many children won't, they'll still share their cards with their parents, they still have those good relationships with their parents, their parents will still know what they're reading. And this is really the, the idea here is to give those children who are in that situation where they need to make health decisions around drug and alcohol treatment, and around mental health, the ability to go in and get that information that they need to make the decision that for them can be a life or death decision. So that's, that's really aligning that age, bringing it down to 12 is that was the intention of the working group's recommendation. I appreciate your character, and I respect that perspective. Senator Lambs. Well, this is a prescription for the drug that I can't see it, but it's the 12 year old was trying to read that and understand it. I have the mental capability to do that at 12 years old. So that's why I support it. I think we're, you know, the agent that's sent from where I understand is 16 right now. And, and we'll see if we'll leave them all. Thanks. I, I see the, the asterisks there and so I know that means that there's stuff that's not included just for, say paper but if there is a going back to the suicide piece if there's a hypothetical book that provides guidance on how to commit suicide and there's a 14 year old who wants to check it out. And the library sees this. I understand if this were to pass they wouldn't be able to talk to the parents would they be able to call the police or anything. Are there any exigent circumstances in which a librarian could not be prohibited from disclosing the information. Librarians. So, and this is, this is the case as far as I know across the board, what people do with the library is, is private and there is state and there's federal, there's federal law about that we would respond to a warrant. We would not, we are not mandate librarians are not mandatory reporters in the state of the month. If I, I, I think this reaction of mine isn't the idea of that book. I've been in libraries since 1999 working as a professional. I've never seen a book of that type in a library and I can't imagine that it would meet the selection criteria that we just established in the, the prior thing that we were talking about. I can't imagine that particular. What the concern was. Yeah, no, I understand, but I think typically the information that is shared in a in a book in a library would be factual medical information. That's vetted and scientific and resources that would be given to a child who asked a staff member would be the staff member would then in my experience working with any youth experiencing homelessness and the LGBTQI community on the streets of San Francisco, I worked in the eight actually never kids would come in and they would be struggling and I would walk them to the clinic or for medical. And I think that the librarian in Vermont hoping that would would take a very proactive stance toward encouraging them to talk with their families and urging them to get help. That's part of what we would do just as humans with a referral, but also giving them factual information to address their specific mental health, medical or drugs concern that they were trying to deal with on their own. Just going to very quickly respond. There is nothing in the enumerated list that has been the lipstick out the bill. Oh, that would allow a librarian to disclose confidential patron records. There's one quick caveat on that, which is that school library records are available to the custodial parents of any child, regardless of age. So if it's a school library that you're dealing with the parents can always access those records and that's because that's governed by federal law per book. And it's a student record is available for the parents. What are you doing at 345 tomorrow. You come back. I can come back. 345 tomorrow. Yes, we've got our issue related to an issue, but they topic on deaf and hard hearing. We've got a really high adeption. Somebody did you sign. Yes, the center. Yeah, yeah, please go ahead and we're just going to take a bit of free. I'm just going to say, in this provision, which I'm in favor of, but I sense and not this is not geared toward any of my colleagues here, but I generally in the health and welfare world. Hey, I often get the sense that there's a lack of trust in the experts right in the in the doctor who are administering care to over 13 year olds and in this big to librarians. Having been one it's like, you know, they know their job they understand what they're doing and there's a certain amount of trust that we have to have in both of those professionals. And I also just wanted to say that it seems a little disingenuous to be focusing our discomfort in with this age when it comes to libraries and yet I feel that kids are accessing much more harmful content on the internet. Let's say that is really it's sort of they can get their hands on all kinds of things that are. I personally would rather focus on how do we get it back to Dr. Eugene's comments, you know, how do we regulate the platforms that our kids are on in the content that they're getting there versus kids in the hands of a professional with years and years of study and experience who really can guide them thoughtfully through those accessing materials. So I just wanted to highlight that. I'm kind of proud of me as well. So I'm just, I support parents knowing about with your 12 year old cows. And if it's a, if they're doing something that's causing the child, we got a lot of in place to take care of that. So we're going to judge all parents. And that's based on a few that are violating law and abuse of children. So that's, that's a class I don't want to say simply just just in response to a respected position but I also think that what we're lacking is trust in the parent. To me that's the crux of the problem or the crux of the. Okay, the same thing I'd like to say is that what we're talking about is state sponsored state treasury used for programs. That's the difference between somebody picking up their cell phone and independently looking at material as opposed to the library, which is, you know, it states it's state funded so there's clearly different worlds. No, that's why I see the difference. The only advantage of not finishing is that we have enough to talk to you again tomorrow. Of course it's great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, community, let's take five minutes and then we're going to ship to Senator Hashim for an update.