 Good morning folks, you are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this morning to continue our deliberations on S-233, a bill relating to uniform licensing standards that the Senate GovOps Committee was nearly done with right before we shut down for COVID and so we are close to wrapping up some of the work that we're doing on our emergency COVID relief. So now we want to turn an eye towards these OPR bills that will help Vermonters get back to work when we are reopening the economy. So we've got a couple of different folks with us this morning and I wanted to start with Jason Malucci because Jason and Lauren Hibbert and I were a part of a delegation of Vermonters who went to an NCSL sponsored conference relating to this idea of uniform licensing and so I wanted to give Jason an opportunity to sort of frame up the context that is coming from the administration on McVill and then we can proceed to hear from some folks from various professions. So Jason, thanks for being with us today. Good morning. Yeah, great. Thank you very much for allowing me to join just for the record Jason Malucci from the governor's office. We had a great time out in Utah earlier at the end of last year. We learned a lot and so just for a little background for how the governor's office got involved in these conversations back in June or late June or early July of last year, the governor and I in a couple other efforts out in Utah as well in Salt Lake City for a national governor's association meeting where several governors, Governor Ducey from Arizona, Governor Wolf from Pennsylvania were talking about how they were pursuing occupational licensing reform as an economic development tool. So it kind of piqued the governor's interest and our office had had a great working relationship with you know the House and Senate government operations committees and the office of professional regulation on an OPR bill for professional licensing the previous year with regard to military reciprocity. So the governor asked us to reach out to OPR to see what we could do to make it easier for people to get licensed here and reform our occupational licensing. We've had a great working relationship with OPR and members of government operations committees on this. So basically what this package does is four main things and just to put it in a little bit further context you know we had a workforce challenge before this crisis with not enough people to fill jobs that were available and I think as we come out of this crisis and as the economy begins to slowly open up again it's going to be you know we're going to have to redouble our efforts in terms of workforce development and making Vermont an attractive state for working for skilled professionals. For a little context as well you know 40 years ago only one in 20 American workers required a government license or government permission slipped work and today it's 20% of workers require some sort of sort of licensure. So what this package does is four things it makes it easier for people who have a license in other states to be licensed in Vermont so it makes that process quicker for them with the general concept that if if someone is you know a nurse in another state or an electrician or a plumber and and their standards are substantially similar it's it's safe for them to work here in Vermont and we need more people in those fields so that's one aspect of it. The second piece is it allows military it expands kind of the work that we did on military a couple years ago allowing them to more broadly receive recognition for the training and experience that they received in the armed services and applying that towards their credentials for licensure in Vermont. The third piece is it gives a second chance process to allow people with criminal backgrounds to receive or go through a predetermination process in order to see whether something in their criminal background would make them ineligible for a license and the point there is to make sure that someone who has a criminal background who wants to you know pursue one of these professions doesn't waste a lot of time and money on education or other requirements just to get to the end of the process and learn that their background disqualifies them from that from that licensing opportunity so the point there is to try to give someone a little bit of comfort in the beginning of the process whether what they've gotten their background would disqualify them or not so they can make an informed decision as to whether to put themselves out there and pursue that specific profession and then the fourth major component requires there to be a review every few years to look at continuing education requirements to make sure that what is being asked of already licensed professionals in order to renew their license or to get that continuing education is really necessary for public protection which is obviously the main point of licensure in the first place is to protect the public so I think some of us have all sat through some continuing education requirements where you end up just having to click through a bunch of videos and then move on and you don't really get much out of it so this is just an opportunity to make sure that every few years that that's being reviewed to ensure that it's relevant and helpful for the public protection mission of occupational licensure so that's kind of the broad overview and again I just really appreciate the hard work for the office of professional regulation and Lauren Hibbert and her team they've done a great job on all of this and we really value our working relationship on on these issues. Great thank you Jason I appreciate that any committee members have questions for Jason about the the context of the bill and and why it's being moved forward right now all right not seeing any questions thank you Jason that was very helpful I think what I'd like to do now is jump over to David Hurley who is with us and his camera is off so maybe he'll maybe he'll join us when he hears his name hi David thank you for being with us this morning would love to hear your thoughts on F-233 as it currently stands we don't have possession of it yet but we we hope to shortly so take it away David. Yeah so the board of medical practice was invited to to be in the senate government operations and give its input on the bill and as it was originally introduced there were there were some technical issues that the board had some problems with but our concerns were addressed the biggest one was that as as written you know Jason mentioned having states with that that it's safe to have people come in to Vermont when their standards are substantially similar to ours and as written it kind of did away with that concept but we we made some adjustments in the senate and as it stands now the the board can can live with the bill. Great questions from committee members that was short and sweet all right not seeing anybody diving for their hand to raise so please stick around with us well Bob Hooper's got us got his hands up Jim Harrison with the little blue hand go ahead Jim and then we'll go to Bob. Thank you Madam Chair David it sounds like the issue you might have had or the board may have had in the senate was addressed but I'm just curious and maybe it's my own lack of knowledge but if you're a medical doctor and you've graduated from one of the country's medical institutions and done your residency what states would be significantly different? Well you know that the there is there is variance among the states on on some of the fundamental requirements some states actually don't require graduation from medical school they only require a couple years of medical school and if you manage to pass the exam you can practice some states have lower requirements for the number of years of residency and so our requirements are pretty much center mass for for you know the mainstream of states what's what's required maybe just a little bit on on the more conservative high side of that for toward safety we require those who graduate from a US medical or Canadian medical school to have at least two years of residency whereas and foreign grads must have three years in a US or Canadian residency program some states require only one year of residency before someone can get a full license and the other thing is you know we do a pretty careful job of examining people's backgrounds and we do look at you know the implications of criminal convictions and and unprofessional conduct findings in other states and you know Vermont is there's there's different ways of measuring it but no no matter how you measure it we are among the the best situated of the states for our our ratios of providers to population and there there are states that are desperate for doctors and and that you know they're obviously they can't have the same high standards that we have here so you know when when you talk about accepting people in by endorsement if they've they've been in good standing for you know three or five years whatever the test may be that you know you can get some people that we might not otherwise uh have in the state great that's very helpful um um i suspect we don't give credit for staying at a holiday in express um in our past right no no no okay um well i've seen it on tv and you know they can do almost anything um anyhow um if you had to estimate how many states this would allow to become licensed in Vermont if they relocated here off the top of your head what i mean we're talking 30 states 50 states uh 10 states well you know first of all with the with the with the board you know the there's a big factor that that kind of makes this um a different conversation and that's because effective this year we're participating in the interstate medical licensing compact and so there's about 30 states now have adopted that and that the way things are going i i think that number is only going to go up and so the vast majority of states already for the physicians who who meet the the criteria to participate in the compact uh would be able to get a license here by the the streamline compact process uh so you know that that factors in as well okay um i i'd have to really take a close look i mean we you know that that's something that um i don't want to shoot from the hip i'm i'm guessing you know we're we're probably um like i said we're we're in center mass maybe on the more conservative because of of our um you know we're not desperate in the in the way some other states are for doctors we've we've had a little bit higher standards so uh i'm i'm guessing that that probably you know somewhere 60 70 percent of the states probably would would qualify okay good that's helpful thank you bob do you have a question well actually i had the same um same question jim had but hearing the answer from david hi david i'd love to see the list of which states allow you in with no medical school essentially because that will impact my travel plans i'm sure thank you you're hoping it's not florida right well yeah but quite frankly it could be based on experience oh it is pretty tough that's that's kind of a semi serious question actually because the broad range of things that we might get into is uh it's kind of an interesting point and madam chair if i may take a little liberty i'd like to congratulate a member from wanooski for maintaining the proper um a tire here it's the only one today with a tie on oh rob leclerc wants points rob is wearing a tie of course and that slick military haircut that he's got okay so thank you david i appreciate your um your helping us understand your perspective on the bill um any other committee members have a question for for david with respect to the board of medical practice all right i'm not seeing any so i would love to invite jessa barnard from the medical society to share any perspective she would like to share with us good morning jessa thanks for being with us good morning thank you very much for having me nice to see everyone it's been a little while since i've seen the faces of folks on this committee jessa barnard with the vermont medical society we are the voluntary membership organization for physicians and also physician assistants in the state so our members are regulated by the board of medical practice so we followed the progress of the bill on the senate side to see how the bill would impact board licensees and i will really just echo what david said we follow kind of followed the lead of the board of medical practice on this bill so we are comfortable with where it left the senate and feel like it both adds some flexibility but maintains the high standard for licensure in the state we had had a initial concern there was a there's a component around waiving fees for military service and we were wondering how that might impact licensing fees for the rest of vermont licensees but after talking with the board it sounds like that'll be a fairly small number of people and won't really impact existing licensees so we are comfortable with where the the bill is thank you committee any questions for the medical society's perspective how go ahead uh thank you madam chair um we all know that vermont has a very small population growth but majority of it is due to new americans and many of them who come to our community are professionals from their home country with all kinds of credentials so any sense on how many new americans might be drawn into these professions based on this bill i would actually defer to both the board and opr on that question just again because they're really the experts in how foreign credentials might translate into practice in the state but it is it is a great question we certainly support pathways for folks coming into the country to be able to practice here as well Lauren or david anything on that sure um so with with regard to mds um i can say that um consistently over the the past several years um the number of physicians that are being licensed in the united states on a yearly basis runs between about 25 and 30 of all physicians so obviously you know foreign educated physicians are a critical component to maintaining the necessary number of of medical practitioners in the united states and there there is a robust system for administering that that process um so i can take a minute and explain what it is but uh if you like or just leave it at that we you know vermont looks like much of the rest of the the nation we have very many of the new licensees are people who trained overseas and when i say foreign medical graduates that includes both americans who choose to go abroad and people who grew up and went to school overseas and then decided they want to come here there is a group that's the the single recognized entity that is involved with verifying the bona fides of people who went overseas making sure their diplomas are genuine and that they're appropriate programs and they evaluate that the training of programs uh and the us mle the united states medical licensing exam which is used by all jurisdictions now um serves also as a competency in english language skills sufficient to record so um yeah it's it's a big part of the other landscape and it's going to continue to be a big part and this um is is not going to impair that in any way thank you lauren anything to add on that i'll just say that um one reason why i think s233 is a great bill is it radiates the work that was done in h4 27 last year um into the other licensing silos particularly education and public safety so um i forget whether that included medical practice um i believe that it does not but i'll look to david or that's the and to clarify that um in large part because the medical um professionals have really worked out foreign credentialing in a way that many other um professions have not streamlined as effectively but um one thing that is i think a crucial part of uh s233 is that those principles from h4 27 are radiated through the other licensing silos and i can speak for opr since 4 27 has been enacted we have um utilized um that bill i think we're now up to six people um getting them credentialed with pathways that would not have been easily uh found before that bill happened so thank you very much representative colston thank you great thank you so much um any other committee members have questions for either jessa or david or anything over to lauren all right super so um i want to think i'd like to do at this point is have beth sian uh take us on um on a slightly more focused trip through the language of the bill and uh as you all saw there it is um a nice summary of the bill that beth sian has provided for us on our committee page and you can find the language of the bill there as well hi good morning uh andre am i able to do oh you already have me as co-host um madam chair do you want me to do share screen or would you rather that i just direct the committee to the documents that will be discussing or i'll be reviewing with you so i will i'll defer to the committee um if you prefer to have share screen so that you're following along and not watching people talking uh give me a wave if you prefer share screen if you prefer to do it on your own separate device and stay on zoom on this device give me a wave okay i think uh i think that that determines who who how we prefer to do our work so go ahead and assume that we're following along great well let's turn together to the uh summary just so that it we can look together at the main points of this bill um so as you've already heard and thank you to andrea for posting that it is on your uh web page under today's date so we're looking at that s2 summary of s233 as recommended by senate gov ops i'll just give you an update um senate gov ops did vote out the bill uh with a strike all amendment and the bill is currently in senate finance and senate finance is scheduled to discuss the bill again this afternoon um but the main provisions are addressed here in this summary and as already described this bill was um originated as a joint proposal um by opr and the administration and it would cover these specified professional regulatory entities that are described at the top of this summary it would include opr the department of environmental conservation for well drillers the standards board for professional educators the electricians licensing board the board of medical practice and the plumber's examining board and so all of those professional regular regulatory entities would be required by the bill to create uniform standards for their licensure processes in regard to the following areas that are specified here but in a manner that's tailored to each entity's professional regulatory structure which would include the way that their statutes are set up and also ultimately who should have decision-making on some of these um areas so the first area that the bill covers is military credentials and fees uh the bill would allow these entities to evaluate specific military credentials to determine equivalency to the credentials required for Vermont licensure and that's a little different from what the general assembly has done in the past which was for some of these entities to require them to have a general process for determining equivalence for military credentials but this is getting into more a nitty gritty analysis of specific military credentials to see whether that would qualify a person for licensure here and then also in regard to um military background um this would require each of these entities to establish qualifications and procedures by which the entity would waive application fees to qualify military members and spouses the second area that this bill covers is criminal backgrounds um requiring these entities to provide a pre-application determination of an applicant's criminal background it's also called a second chance determination request um as it relates to the professions for which the applicant may thereafter seek licensure so how this would work for all of these entities um an applicant would pay a $25 fee and essentially provide information on the person's criminal background and any rehabilitation from it um other things in the board the entity should consider in order to learn whether the criminal background would be a disqualifier for the person to seek licensure and the big idea is to get an idea of whether their criminal background would be a disqualifier before the applicant goes through the process and expense of getting any necessary education or other experience in order to get licensed according to the qualifications for licensure the language currently provides that this second chance determination is not binding if the applicant thereafter violates probation or parole or is convicted of another crime following that determination but if the individual does thereafter seek licensure that $25 that they paid would be deducted from their license application fee the third area is that sunset review that was already discussed this would require each of these entities to conduct a sunset review at least once every five years regarding the professions continuing competency requirements in order to determine whether those requirements should be reduced or otherwise modified whether they're necessary to protect the public essentially um the the next area is that endorsement uh procedure for based on practice in other states this would require each entity to have an endorsement process for licensure that requires not more than three years of practice in good standing in another U.S. jurisdiction regardless of whether that jurisdiction has licensing requirements substantially similar to those of this state so the idea is to um allow for licensure based on three years of good practice in another state but there are exceptions that are allowed um for example an entity could determine that a certain jurisdiction um doesn't have robust enough qualifications for licensure that three years would be a good enough standard to allow for licensure by endorsement and then there's also on the other hand an authorization to waive the profession's practice requirement for example if maybe you don't need a full three years practice in another state um if it would still follow state policy to allow the person to be licensed even though they don't have the minimum practice requirement in other jurisdiction and then finally the last topic covered is that foreign credential verification as the director of OPR already discussed the H427 um which was proposed by representative Colston was enacted into law for OPR and this requires a process to assess the equivalence of an applicant's professional credentials earned outside the U.S. as compared to those in Vermont and the authorization to have a third party credential verification service and so that language would be applied to all of these other professional and regulatory entities so those are the main provisions of the bill but each as the language gets added each of the statutes um it is tailored to each entity's regulation so while all these are uniform standards for all of these entities the language might be tweaked a little bit to fit how they regulate their professionals so if you do want to go into that um Madam Chair I'll just ask now for the committee members to pull up the Senate Gov Opp strike all that draft 3.1 that Andrea posted for you great Jim Harrison has a question while folks are shifting over to that document um hi Betsy Ann I may find my answer when I pull up the actual bill but I'm curious you know I'm looking at the last one the for foreign a credential verification for example we're requiring these various entities whether it's OPR or the life electricians licensing board etc to have a process to look at the licensing for foreign experience and that's all great and support that and we passed a bill similar to that last year I'm just wondering has when is this effective or when does this have to be done by I'm sensitive to you know we've already putting forth a administration's put forth a what so-called skinny budget with an 8% reduction and that very well could mean staff reductions to get at that 8% so are we putting any unrealistic requirements on any agencies for doing this or is the date out there far enough that it's not a problem so for I think all or almost all of these professional regulatory entities the requirement to have that process for foreign credential verification is by rule and the very last or second to last section of the bill strike all senate give up strike all provides that the rulemaking deadline is July 1 2021 unless that deadline is extended by Elcar pursuant to the Elcar review process so I think if not for all almost all if this requirement for foreign credential equivalence is by rule that those rules would have to be adopted by next July 1 2021 which means started at least usually allows six to eight months at least for rulemaking to go through the process yeah and and I get and it may not be a very big issue at all it's just I just want to flag it because if we adopt that that means they've got to start on that in the next couple months of going through this and we just don't know what that last three quarters budget is going to look like at this it may be fine we may get some federal help but right now we just don't know so I just want to flag that thank you noted yeah and that's certainly that's certainly a dynamic that we want to be sensitive to on the other hand we also want to make sure that that we can get people back to work as quickly as possible and that includes folks who may be new to Vermont Vermont's not a bad place to live you know all right go ahead bet the end all right so the way that this bill is set up is it just goes by the statutes of each professional regulatory entity so it starts out with OPR statutes which are set forth on title three so I'm going to scroll through to page two where we get to the first requirement um which or authorization here which on page two is to allow the director of OPR to evaluate specific military credentials to determine equivalency to credentials required for OPR professions and those determinations how the director would go about doing that would be adopted through a written policy that's posted on OPR's website then all here on page two um also online 12 we get into the other topic the other topic of that second chance determination about a person's criminal background so this language here in new subsection k would be saying for any OPR profession OPR shall provide a pre-application determination of an individual's criminal background it wouldn't be binding on OPR in a future application if the individual violates probation or parole or is convicted of another crime following the determination goes on to describe how this would work OPR would initiate this determination upon an individual's second chance determination request request would have to provide documentation related to the individual's conviction or convictions evidence of rehabilitation and an identification of the profession or professions for which the person would seek licensure top of page three individual would be required to submit this request online accompanied by the fee that's set forth in OPR's fee statute for all of these entities this fee would be 25 dollars and for all entities and here specifically for OPR if the individual thereafter applies for licensure that 25 pre-application fee would be and would be required to be deducted from that license application fee all of these entities have the same process OPR would have to process one of these requests within 30 days of receiving a complete one and assess the nature of the underlying conviction or convictions the nexus to the profession or professions for which the individual might seek licensure and the provided evidence of rehabilitation and then respond in writing you'll see this repeated in similar language throughout the bill I am moving down to section two we're still in OPR now at the top of page four and there's that 25 dollar fee for that second chance determination request and then on page four line four is a separate topic this is about the military qualifications this language provides pursuant to qualifications and procedures determined by the director of OPR the office would be required to waive upon request application fees for qualified military members and military spouses so for all of these entities the entity would determine what the qualifications would be and the procedures to waive these fees and then if an applicant met those met those qualifications the entity would be required to waive fees for qualified military members and military spouses moving on to another topic of the bill those sunset reviews this is in regard to evaluating the ongoing need for continuing competency requirements such as continuing education or a certain amount of experience or practice we're still in OPR this language is saying not less than once every five years each profession attached to OPR and there are approximately 50 40 47 to 50 around there each profession would be required to review its continuing education or other continuing competency requirements and provide there's a manner in which this review has to be done the review would have to be in writing and address these different items what the renewal requirements are for this profession in Vermont be what the renewal requirements and other jurisdictions are particularly in the northeast i'm at the top page five what the cost of the renewal requirements are for the licensees an analysis of the utility and effectiveness of the renewal requirements with respect to public protection because remember that's the basic principle of professional regulation is to protect the public and then finally recommendations to the director of OPR on whether the continuing education or other continuing competency requirements should be modified so these at least as far as OPR structure would be each profession would conduct this analysis and then provide the information to the director the director would be required to respond to the profession which within 45 days of the submitted review results and then after reviewing that the director of OPR may require profession to reduce modify or otherwise change the renewal requirements including by proposing any necessary amendments to statute or rule so at least for how OPR is set up there's the director of OPR and the professions would need to submit that info to the director and then the director would make a determination and may seek some amendments to the law in light of this sunset analysis all right we're on section four still within OPR we're moving on to another topic of the bill which is that endorsement process for licensure based on practice in other states one thing to just point out here this is only in regard to practice in other states of the united states not outside of the united states and this language says except it's provided in subsection b which we'll get to in a moment all professions attach the office shall have an endorsement process that requires not more than three years of practice in good standing in another jurisdiction within the united states regardless of whether that jurisdiction has licensing requirements substantially similar to those of ramon so in good standing means the director can correct me if i'm wrong that it's without major discipline on your license for example you didn't have your license revoked at some point during those three years of practice for example but if you met those three years of practice in good standing in another u.s jurisdiction that would qualify you for licensure a subsection b provide some exceptions the profession might determine that three years of practice in another jurisdiction is not adequately protective of the public if that's the case the profession would provide its rationale to the director as to why it doesn't believe that that three years of practice is enough to grant licensure here because it would may harm public protection and the director in turn may propose any necessary necessary statutory or rule amendments in order to implement more restrictive requirements for endorsement and this perhaps could look you know if for example if state x just does not have really robust requirements for licensure in the to be able to practice a profession for example that might be a reason why the profession here in vermont would say coming from x we don't think that it's protective of the public to allow licensure just based on three years of practice in state x because state x has very minimal qualifications for licensure for example here on page six line three subsection c is on the other hand the director may issue to an endorsement applicant a waiver of the profession's practice practice requirement if there's a showing that the waiver follows state policy and the public is adequately protected a couple things to note here this is just tailoring this to opiars regulatory structure where it would be the director of opiars and not for example a board that would be able to issue these waivers and so this might be a case where all right the person from another state doesn't have three years of practice but maybe they have two and a half or two and they have satisfied the director's analysis that licensing the person based on that two or two and a half years of practice for example um should be permitted because the person has enough experience to get licensed here and practice safely for example uh just to note here of course like we already discussed we're going we're at the end of the opiars provision and they don't have that foreign credential verification because you already enacted it into law so we're moving on to well drillers here on page six in section five and that's going to end and i'll interrupt you for just a moment um gannon has a question thank you um that's the end could you just clarify um i know somebody can just disclose a criminal background and that um opiars will look at it um but this bill does not address the issue of requiring criminal background checks for every profession licensed by opiars you are correct um for example and this is uh an issue that's being discussed in senate finance we are reviewing this issue about these what it really means for these uh pre application determinations so for example for opiars i think there's four professions that opiars regulates that actually the general assembly has allowed opiars to conduct criminal background checks that's only four of the total of approximately 50 professions that opiars regulates so but for all of the opiars professions this pre application determination would apply it would be expected that the person would provide an accurate accounting of the person's criminal background history um if the person thereafter seeks licensure i believe it's a standard um question on a license application to require a person to disclose if they had any criminal convictions in their past for those opiars professions where the general assembly has not allowed a criminal background check um opiars would not be allowed to conduct one it would just their licensure the whether to grant the license would be based on the criminal background history that the applicant provided but it is at least possible for opiars may find out in other ways that the person lied on the application for example um and um submitting fraudulent um information to opiars is unprofessional conduct so if opiars and the director of opiars can weigh in again but we had just recently discussed this in another committee um if opiars found that it was not accurate information that the person was providing about their criminal background um it could be a reason to deny the license application initially or if the person actually did get licensed and opiars later learned that the person was not uh didn't provide truthful information it could be a reason to discipline the person's license so this bill is going to apply to initial licensing correct with respect to the disclosure of criminal background if somebody already holds a license under opiars and they're just renewing their license do they have to make the same disclosure oh let's ask uh the director of opiars for sure i think she'd be the best resource for the record lauren hippert director of the office of professional regulation um we ask whether you have been arrested or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony outside of a traffic um infraction in both our initial application and our renewal application and this bill would not change that and everything else that um betsy am said is correct about the implications of this bill on our process okay um lauren as you know i'm very concerned about sexual predators um being licensed in vermont and our lack of ability to identify them um as you know in massachusetts they discovered that they had many licensees um who were registered sexual predators um and you know i just think that that issue still needs to be resolved i do not disagree with you um and unfortunately this bill does not resolve that um and we've looked at the issue of look of comparing the sex abuse registry with our licensee list and or requiring more criminal background checks and those are conversations that we need to have with the department of public safety um and probably put through um certainly have if more professions need to be criminally background checked um that would be through a legislative process we would need authorization to do that and i think that we would need authorization to check the the sex abuse registry if we were doing anything that was not posted publicly um so i need to have a conversation with public safety on that issue and i'm committed to having that conversation before the next legislative session our representative gannon thank you all right i have marcia gardener and then mike marwicky thank you i think this is a question for lauren uh about the sunset review i believe it said in the bill that or the proposal that the director will review these reports um i'm wondering if that's workable for you with 47 or 50 different occupations and how you would go about uh looking at these reports would you ask others to come in and help you with that review yes i would um i would expect that we put these on a staggered schedule so they wouldn't all come do at the same time um and all of our professions do not have continuing education um i think it's about two-thirds of them do um and then um i would obviously rely on my very excellent staff to help me um review these and i anticipate that most of the boards will find that their continuing education is appropriate um because um some of our boards um are very committed to their continuing education and i think that's where it could be a little tricky is if there's no demonstration of um value then we'll have to have a conversation and that's where the majority of the work would come in thank you sure and mike but just to follow up on john's concern i share that concern and as someone who works in child protection um we are regularly aware that we need to do a better job one of those things that we have done recently is is um we've opened up better communications with other states in that it used to be we would do a background check that would be limited to vermont and there's now a better system of us being able to check other states um and whether somebody has such a record in other states i would agree that this is something we need to look at and perhaps expand um who who gets a background check and uh when that happens so i'm i'm certainly open to that kind of conversation as well thank you thanks mike i'm gonna keep going we're on page six and now we're getting into well drillers well drillers are regulated by the department of environmental conservation i'm going to start sounding pretty repetitive because this is uniform licensing standards so we're covering the same topics um but i'll just note again that each one is tailored to each regulatory entity structure so the language um does get tweaked a little bit for to apply each of these uniform standards in a manner that fits the regulatory structure so i'm here on page six section five in regard to well drillers uh moving on to page seven the first topic covered is the criminal background the pre-application determination this requires de c to provide that um to an individual to get that second chance determination um on the person's criminal background history again the determination would not be binding on de c in a future application if the individual violates probation or parole or has another conviction it's the same type of language that you already reviewed in regard to opr um person would still have to provide documentation relating to their convictions and evidence of rehabilitation needs to be completed online with a payment of a $25 fee and again if the person thereafter applies for licensure that $25 fee gets deducted from that future application fee same process time frame process request within 30 days of receiving one assess the nature of the underlying convictions nexus to the well drilling profession and the provided evidence of rehabilitation and respond in writing page eight line two we get into the next topic of that sunset review again not less than once every five years de c would have to review its continuing ed or other continuing competency requirements for well drillers and look at those same uh criteria what the renewal requirements are what they are like in other states particularly the northeast the cost and analysis of the utility and effectiveness of the renewal requirements with respect to public protection and then recommend to the secretary of an r on whether those continuing competency requirements should be modified secretary respond to de c within 45 days and then the secretary may require the department to renew reduce modify or otherwise change the renewal requirements including by proposing any amendments to statute or rule so similar to opr where the secretary of an r has the ultimate authority in regard to the continuing competency review like the director of opr does bottom of page eight here is the evaluation of specific military credentials to determine the equivalence to credentials for well drillers those determinations would need to be adopted through written policy posted on the department's website and next topic here still for well drillers that uniform process for endorsement from other states where the department would be required to issue licenses for well drillers who've been licensed in good standing in another u.s. state for at least three years regardless of whether that state has licensed requirements substantially similar to vermont similarly if the department determines three years is not adequately protected it would provide its rationale to the secretary who may propose necessary statutory or rule amendments to implement more restrictive requirements for that jurisdiction same thing that was provided for opr but on the flip side again the secretary would be authorized to issue to an endorsement applicant a waiver if the practice requirement is too stringent and there's a for this person who could show that the waiver follows state policy and the public is adequately protected for example if they don't have the full three years but the secretary of an r determines that licensure would not be a risk to the public protection and then I think finally here at the bottom of page 10 is the requirement to have a uniform process for foreign credential verification so it'd be the secretary of an adopting rules in consultation with d ec to prescribe a process for the secretary to assess the equivalents of an applicant's professional credentials earned outside the u.s. as compared to those for vermont's licensing requirements for well drillers any determination of equivalence by the secretary would be in consultation with the department recorded in the applicant's licensing file and binding on the department and the secretary would rely on third party could rely on third party credential services and those services the cost would be paid by the applicant so that's similar to how that already works for the law enacted for opr I'll just note that the one thing that we noticed does not is not provided here for well drillers is that requirement to develop qualifications and procedures to waive fees for qualified military applicants and spouses that was caught on the senate side it's my understanding senate finance is likely to introduce an amendment to make that uniform for well drillers it was just an oversight that that wasn't provided there for that profession but should be included by the time the bill leaves the senate now I'm on page 11 we're now moving into the professional educators uh practice professionals so tailored to the education statutes here is the requirement for the standards board for professional educators which generally regulates our educators to have that continuing the sunset review so that not less than once every five years the standards board would review its continuing education or other continuing competency requirements for professional educators they'd have to put in writing their results which would need to address the renewal requirements the renewal requirements of other jurisdictions particularly the new northeast the cost of renewal and analysis of the utility and effectiveness of the renewal requirements and a special language tweak specifically for the education profession with respect to the purpose set forth in a section another section of law which describes the purpose of regulating educators and the state policy on page 12 we're still with educators here online seven is the requirement to adopt rules for an application process to provide licensure to applicants who can demonstrate three years or more of practice in good standing and another jurisdiction within the u.s regardless of whether that jurisdiction has substantially similar requirements for licensure so there's that uniform process for licensure by endorsement based on three years of practice and another jurisdiction but language here online 11 saying that the standards board may by rule exclude an endorsement from the process if it finds that licensure by a reciprocity for things not fulfill this whole series so this language especially um especially tweaked for educators and that was based on feedback from um agency of education here at the bottom of page 12 is the authority for the standards board by adoption of a written policy that's posted on aoe's website to allow specific military credentials to satisfy one or more requirements for licensure that's the military credentials aspect on page 13 section seven this begins the new language to require the agency of education to have that pre application determination in regard to a person's criminal background it's very similar to the language you've already reviewed providing specifically that the results of the pre application determination is not binding on the secretary in a future application so that's a little different because the language is uh not exact as the other ones that we've already reviewed saying it's not binding if the person commits another conviction um for example or violates probation or parole but this was based on feedback from aoe and I think that language here the pre application determination shall adhere to the process set forth in section 254 this title if I'm remembering correctly that's um I believe it's piggybacking on language that's talking about um uh let's see before I say I'll need to look that up and get back I'll verify I'll confirm for you um exactly what that's referring to that cross reference I need to remind myself but I'll circle back to that but the process for the person to submit this information is the same they had a person who wants to apply for the second chance termination uh request would a need to provide documentation relating to their criminal conviction or substantiation um evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation and identification of the license and any endorsement the individual will seek this is education specific language I think substantiation here I believe that is in regard to exploitation of a child for example or perhaps a a vulnerable adult so a slightly slightly tweaked language from the other professional regulatory entities but it goes on to provide here online 14 some similar language it'd have to this uh an applicant would need to just complete a form submit the fee um it cross references a fee statute which we'll get to in a second but it is that $25 fee and if the person thereafter applies for a licensure that pre-application fee would be deducted from the license fee secretary of AOE would need to process such a request within 30 days assess the nature of the convictions or substantiation the nexus to the license and endorsement sought and the provided evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation and then respond writing as to whether the individual may seek licensure then we move on to the next topic which is that uniform process for foreign credential verification here the secretary of AOE would need to adopt rules in consultation with the standards board that prescribe a process for the secretary to assess the equivalence of an applicant's professional credentials earned outside the US as compared to those for Vermont licensure as a professional educator here some education specific language a determination of equivalence by the secretary would need to be in consultation with the standards board recorded in the licensing file and binding on the board and allowing the secretary to rely on third party credential verification services with the cost of those services paid by the applicant that's consistent with the OPR law and here at the bottom is language saying that preliminary license denials apply to a license application if there is a determination of non equivalence that just means that the person appeals that they have the burden of showing at the appeal that they actually should have met those they did meet those qualifications page 15 section 8 there's that $25 fee for that pre application criminal background determination online six and then online seven is language saying pursuant to qualifications and procedures determined by the secretary of AOE the agency shall upon request waive applications fees to qualified military members and spouses so you see how there's a little bit of a distinction where it's the secretary level the agency level that's waiving those fees not the standards board level and that was just a fit within educators specific regulatory structure then we move into the electricians profession here on page 15 I am moving on to page 16 where we start the first substantive topic which is that criminal background pre application determination here it's the electricians board that would provide this to applicants not binding on the electricians board in a future application if the individual violates probation or parole or has another conviction it's a second chance determination request that triggers this the person would have to provide their documentations relating to their convictions and evidence of rehabilitation that's consistent language have to submit it online pay the fee $25 that fee set forth another statute and at the top of page 17 if the person thereafter does apply for licensure the pre application fee is deducted from the license application fee it's the consistent process where the board the electricians board would process these within 30 days assess the nature of the convictions nexus to the electrician profession and provided evidence of rehabilitation and then respond in writing and we get to that sunset review process here online 10 that not less than once every five years again the board would need to review electricians continuing education or other competency requirements provide those results in writing address the sand criteria and then here at the bottom of page 18 how to work for the electricians board is that they would provide their recommendations to the commissioner of public safety because the electricians board is under the public safety umbrella as to whether the continuing education or other competency requirements should be modified and then commissioner would respond to the board within 45 days and the commissioner may require the board to reduce modify or otherwise change those renewal requirements including by proposing any necessary amendments to statute or rule so similar to the OPR structure where there's a the higher level review of those requirements or on section 10 here line five first for electricians it's setting out that $25 fee for the pre application criminal background determination and then language here online 10 saying that pursuant to qualifications and procedures determined by the commissioner of public safety the board shall upon request waive application fees for qualified military members and military spouses so that's just tailored to their professional regulatory structure where the commissioner would determine the qualifications and then the board would be the one to waive the fees if a person met those qualifications as a military member or spouse all right i'm on page 19 we're still about talking about electricians here's the electricians uniform process for endorsement from other states and starting the requirement the board would need to issue a license to master and journeyman electricians who've been licensed in good standing in another jurisdiction with the united states for at least three years regardless of whether the jurisdiction meets the reciprocity reciprocity requirements of subdivision one of this section so here's where it's all tailored specifically to the electrician profession because if you look starting at the bottom of page 18 online 19 in order to have licensure by endorsement here in vermont for electricians it's based a condition of that licensure by endorsement is based on reciprocity where that other state would also license electricians from vermont in that their state so this language on page 19 is saying regardless of whether that other state agrees to have a reciprocity agreement with vermont a person can get licensed by endorsement as an electrician based on three years of practice in good standing in another us jurisdiction but here online 10 it does say that if the board determines that three years of demonstrated practice and another jurisdiction is not adequately protected of the public for example that state x has really lacks qualifications for licensure it is possible the board would provide its rationale to the commissioner expressing those concerns and the commissioner may propose any necessary statutory or rule amendments in order to implement more restrictive requirements for endorsement for that jurisdiction but on the flip side the commissioner of public safety could issue an endorsement applicant a waiver of the practice requirement if there's a showing that the waiver follows state policy the public's adequately protected so even if they didn't have the three years of practice person may be able to get a waiver of that requirement we can skip ahead to the top of page 21 still in regard to electricians here is the authority for the electricians board to evaluate specific military credentials to determine equivalence to those credentials within the board's jurisdiction the determinations would be adopted through written policy posted on the electricians board website and then finally here on line five is the requirement for the commissioner of public safety to adopt rules in consultation with the board that prescribe a process for the commissioner of public safety to assess the equivalence of an applicant's professional credentials earned outside the U.S. as compared to those for licensure in Vermont as an electrician and any determination of equivalence by the commissioner would need to be in consultation with the electricians board recorded in the applicant's licensing file and binding on the board and the board could rely on third party credential verification services to conduct that foreign credential evaluation those costs paid by the applicant moving into the professions regulated by the board of medical practice our physicians physician assistants anesthesiologists assistants and podiatrists so here as the executive director of the board had already testified this is tailored to based on feedback from the board the language here in section 13 starts out with the pre application determination of a person's criminal background not binding on the board of medical practice if the individual thereafter violates probation or parole or has another conviction gets the applicant needs to submit the second chance determination request provide the same info documentation related to their conviction evidence rehab and identification of the profession that they want to get licensure um submit the request online it's they have to pay that pre application fee it's cross-reference to the board's fee statute but it is $25 we'll see that in a moment um and then again if the person does apply for licensure ultimately that 25 bucks would get deducted from their license application fee same process board would have to um process one of these requests within 30 days assess the nature of the conviction the nexus to the profession and the provided evidence of rehab and respond and writing then i'm moving to the bottom of page 22 top of page 23 we're getting into military credentials and this is slightly different from some of the other language in the bill um we're starting off first with the requirement for the board to establish uniform procedures applicable to all of the board's professions under its jurisdiction providing for at the top of page 23 appropriate recognition of education training or service completed by a member of the us armed forces toward the court requirements for licensure to have an expedited issuance of professional license to a person who is licensed in good standing in another regulatory jurisdiction and who has a spouse who's a member of the armed forces and who has been subject to a military transfer to vermont and who left employment to accompany his or her spouse to vermont um this is sometimes referred to as the trailing spouse who follows his or her spouse who's in the military here to vermont and there's a authority for the person to get license based on to have for the board to have a process to license these folks um this language it doesn't appear in other parts of the bill but this was this is language that's already the law for opr and um this was the board had agreed to including this language for the board professions but similar to the other provisions of this bill here online 10 of page 23 is the additional requirement that's uniform for all of the other professions for the board to evaluate specific military credentials to determine equivalents to credentials within the board's jurisdiction and uh adopt those determinations through a written policy that's posted on the board's website online 14 here is the requirement to have the foreign credential verification where the board would have to adopt rules that prescribe a process for the board to assess the equivalents of an applicant's professional credentials earned outside the us as compared to those for vermont licensure by the board um a determination of equivalents would be recorded in the applicant's licensing file and the board would be authorized to rely upon third party credential verification services with the cost paid by the applicant age 24 line four is the other topic of the sunset review where the board of medical practice would be required to conduct this review once every five years at least to review the board's continuing ed or other competency requirements for each of the its professions um again same criteria what are the renewal requirements what are renewal requirements of other jurisdictions particularly the northeast what's the cost and an analysis of the utility and effectiveness of the renewal um in regard to public protection and then the board would recommend the commissioner of health on whether the continuing ed or other continuing competency requirements should be modified so the commissioner of health like the director of opr would have to respond to the board within 45 days and the commissioner of health could require the board to reduce modify or otherwise change those renewal requirements including by proposing necessary amendments to statutory rule i'm on page 25 section 14 this is getting into the endorsement process based on practice and another us jurisdiction if you recall the executive director said that the board had requested some tweaks to the language so it fits what the board was comfortable with for licensure by endorsement this section 14 is specifically in regard to podiatrists so here is language he online 11 saying the board shall have an endorsement process that requires not more than three years of practice in good standing in another jurisdiction with the us regardless of whether that jurisdiction has requirements substantially equal to those of remont and then it provides board specific language so long as the applicant meets one of the following postgraduate training requirements and this is what the executive director was referring to earlier the board is willing to license people by endorsement based on three years of practice in another us jurisdiction provided the person can meet one of these two conditions that start online 16 if they're a graduate of a us or canadian podiatric school accredited by a body that's acceptable to the board they have to have completed at least two years of postgraduate training in a us or canadian program accredited by an organization that's acceptable to the board or if the person is a graduate of a board approved podiatric school outside the us or canada the person has to have completed at least three years of postgraduate training in a us or canadian program accredited by an organization that's acceptable to the board so those are specific board requirements for endorsement licensure by endorsement but here on page 26 it does go on online three to say if the board does determine that three years of demonstrated practice in another jurisdiction is not adequately protective of the public it would provide its rationale to the commissioner of health who may propose any necessary amendments in order to implement more restrictive requirements for endorsement from that jurisdiction for example the state x who doesn't have the the board doesn't finds that does not have adequate qualifications for licensure but on the flip side the board could also issue to an endorsement applicant a waiver of the practice requirement if it shows there's a showing the waiver follow state policy public's adequately protected when a policy has a question go ahead bob that's the end or lauren we have talked about endorsement endorsement endorsement and so many of these different things is there a is it laid out or dictated someplace where the endorsement process shall contain this that or the other thing and who sets it then how do we ensure that the endorsement process is either consistent or thorough enough that you're not just getting somebody sending five xerox copies of something in and moving forward so um usually in the endorsement process is set up um by agency for opr um we have an endorsement application and the requirements are different by profession so that they're profession specific one of the goals of this bill is to break down those profession specific requirements after five three years of practice in another state yeah and that's I don't think the question um okay sorry it's more like the uh you know the secretary of state's office has a bunch of investigators do they follow up on these things to verify that basically what you're seeing on the paper and are true and complete um yes how are we making sure that the standard for the endorsement is factual yes so we have a process that we use um in any license application where our licensing specialists look at the documents that we receive and we follow up with the license verification with us the other state so if um someone from New Hampshire applies for licensure we independently do a third party verification with the other state that the license is in good standing does that answer your question yep thank you thank you so Betsy and we have one other topic that we want to try to get to today and so I'm wondering if we can maybe jog through and and make note of the parts of the remaining 10 pages that uh that are similar and uh and come back to the ones that are anything different from what we've seen with the other profession sounds great okay so I'll just point out section 15 is still in regard to the board of medical practice this is their uh procedure to license by endorsement physicians based on three years of practice in another u.s jurisdiction it's similar to the podiatrists where it's um based on they will do this based on whether you graduated from u.s or canadian medical medical school and had at least two years of postgraduate training or if you had a uh your graduate of a foreign school at least three years of postgraduate training um I'll just note also the board of medical practice regulates radiologist assistance anesthesiologist assistance and physician assistance but the board did provide feedback to senate gov ops that the endorsement process was not appropriate or really wasn't something that happens for those professionals so those three professions aren't included in there just to make a note of that there was language about them being able to waive the military fees and there's their pre-application determination I'll just note online or section 17 there's a one-off here on page 29 in regard to nursing where there is a tweak to the ability to get licensed as an lpn a licensed practical nurse based on a program of study conducted in by the us armed forces that's a one-off for this bill and then finally the bill gets into the plumbers it's very similar to set up for the electricians I think there's nothing that distinguishes the this language from the electricians board I'm recalling correctly both the electricians board and professional and the plumbers board are under the department of public safety so it's that same language that we already reviewed in regard to electricians um I'll just make a note again here on page 35 in section 21 is that requirement to adopt any of the necessary rules by july 1 2021 and then finally the last page is the effective date of july 1 of this year excellent any remaining questions burning questions for vetsy an on this Bob's still got his hand up from before I think all right so just so that we all understand our plan with respect to this bill we will come back to it at our committee meeting on Tuesday so that we can hear from the well drillers teachers electricians and plumbers and so we will come back to this in a little more depth on those specific professions next week so want to thank uh david hurley he and jessa barnard for being with us today lauren we appreciate you as always jason thanks for setting the context of this bill and we are going to shift gears to a different bill right now so you can stick around if you like or you can sign off and be free from your computer for however much time vetsy and thank you so much for that and we'll see you again on Tuesday thank you so much so we have uh rob had to jump off for a few minutes and he is now coming back and we have maria royal with us who can um take us through again the bill that we are working on with respect to communication and union districts um after we hear from maria then i will invite john yannon to share with us the consideration that house energy and technology did on this language so maria welcome hi nice to be here everyone maria royal with legislative council and andrea am i able to share the screen with you or are you able to pull up the document um let's go ahead and give you co-host there you go look at that okay okay can everybody see the document yes that's great so i believe you've already kind of been through this um at least at the concept level and heard some testimony um we'll go through it section by section and i'm also just gonna highlight one substantive change um so that you're aware of that and it's really just a clarification and it's actually in the first section so just to um as a little bit of a refresher uh these provisions all concern um communications union districts their formation and their initial appointments uh to the district and also their initial organizational meeting um so the first change let me just figure out the best way to scroll down here there we go okay so section one this is specific to the formation of a cud and in fact this is where the one substantive change uh did occur and that's the very online 16 that very first phrase specifies for purposes of formation of a cud um this was just to make very clear uh that again this is as the formation process um and then also this is just temporary authority um for the duration of the state of emergency due to COVID-19 and this would allow the legislative body for example select board of municipality to form and enter into a cud as opposed to requiring a vote either at an annual meeting or special meeting um involving all of the eligible voters of the municipality so again just temporary authority then sections two and three we'll start with section two this would be an amendment to the existing statute regarding the appointment of representatives and alternates to the the district board um so this is a permanent change and you'll see that under existing law those appointments would occur um in the year following the effective date of the district's creation so even if a district were able to form very quickly in the next month or two because of this provision they would not actually be able to appoint representatives to serve on the district board until the following year so the proposal here is just to eliminate that um timing requirement all together uh so that that doesn't come up in the future um and then in terms of most of most of the appointments are to serve one year terms so if you go down the line 13 there's some new language and it says that for initial appointments they shall be made within 60 days of the vote to form a district and initial terms may be for less than one year so again this is just for initial appointment appointments in subsequent years the timing which is largely I think revolves around town meeting annual meetings you get back on to that that schedule of uh April um votes and so on so again that's a permanent change and similarly with respect to the first the organizational meeting of a CUD this provides on lines I'm on now page two lines one through three the board's initial organizational meeting shall be held within 90 days of the vote to form a district um so again uh moving beyond the prescriptive timing requirements of the second Tuesday in May which you can see on that the very first words of this statutory section um at least for purposes of the initial organizational meeting so this is just really to deal with some of the timing elements and that is pretty much it the effective date is on passage thank you Maria any questions from committee members about the words on the page Jim Harrison Maria thank you for the overview if I may digress just a little bit um Maria I'm sorry that we didn't have March Madness this year but I will say that your non-traditional approach to picking teams um in the past probably would have served you very well and I suspect you would have been at the top of the heap uh this year based on uh the season that we had thank you I can't think of a greater reward or acknowledgement um so I'm really pleased to hear that especially for some of others that have picked non-traditionally and have had great success consistently all right any uh any other questions from committee members about the words on the page right I'm not seeing folks diving for their screen so uh stick with us Maria and we will go over to John Gannon now to um ask you John to share with us your conversation with House Energy and Technology who were the originators of the communications union district concept and bill so thanks for joining them and reporting back to us sure so I mean this chapter was part of a larger broadband broadband effort to encourage broadband across the state and one of the ways to do that is through communication union districts several of which have already been set up and as we heard in our committee you know there's at least three study areas one in Des Moines one in Addison and one in Rutland that are proposing to to try to create CUDs but are struggling with the voting requirements so I testified before House Energy and Technology yesterday morning I walked them through the changes their questions were just basic about understanding exactly what we're doing in this bill they did not present any concerns about these changes they're a little baffled as to how this how the appointment had to be a year after the formation of the CUD ended up in the bill but that was their own questioning of themselves I think rather than what came to this bill and they took a straw vote and the vote was 10-0-1 with Representative Sherman being absent from the discussion I'm not 10-0 would be what are they are seven they're not a 11 member committee oh I can't remember how many they have okay well everyone voted for it that was there and Representative Sherman was not there okay great so you don't have any red flags from them which is good news and and I think that given that this is our our one immediate task in terms of COVID response bills I would love for us to get comfortable with the language here and ask any other questions we have of Maria who drafted it and then be prepared to move it on its way so does anybody have questions Jim I don't have any questions but when appropriate I would move that we adopt this draft whatever it is 1.3 I believe 1.3 yes excellent so we have a motion on the table any committee discussion on this you know that we've looked at this language a few times already so just want to make sure that we have a chance to ask any remaining questions all right nobody is diving towards the screen and I can see Marsha Gardner is getting ready with her roll call sheet as our clerk are you ready for me to start the roll I believe we are okay gannon yes kits Miller yes Roe Wickey yes LaClaire yes Harrison yes Gardner yes Placic yes Cooper yes Brown out yes Colston yes public hands yes so the vote is 1100 excellent so I would love to have John gannon report this on the floor and I appreciate your extra effort in making sure that energy and technology was aware of and comfortable with this as well and so if there are no remaining questions on this we will say thank you to Maria for being with us and move along thank you so much Maria it's very nice to see you hope you and your family are well great okay that is the end of what we have on our agenda for today next week we will certainly be coming back to 233 because we need to not only hear from the other boards or professions who are mentioned in the bill but also so that we can give some time to the other committees who have jurisdiction over parts of the bill to weigh in on it as well and then depending on what parts of the budget or the economic stimulus proposal that the governor's putting on the table fall under our jurisdiction we may shift gears back and forth between these licensing bills 233 and 220 and consideration of different parts of the budget proposal so that is what I expect our task to be over the next couple of weeks anybody have questions requests clarification all right it's a good deal okay so that is all that we have for today any any announcements as a committee