 Okay, Chris, before you begin and just for people who just got on, we've got a bill out of Washington that's going to make a world of difference for Vermonters in the country and I heard it 600 pages long. The sections that we're involved in, I'm sure, are equally detailed. This is our first hearing about it, so we're going to use this next hour or an hour and a half to understand exactly what it does and where there may be holes, if possible, and how it dovetails with Vermont law and trying to find out whether there are things that we can do to either improve on it, whether any legislation is necessary. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Chris. Could you identify yourself for the record? Of course. And we'll start moving it along. Thank you. Hi, this is Chris Honders with the Office of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy. I work on business and economic development. I'm a field representative for the senator here in Vermont. So as you mentioned, Senator, last night, early this morning, the Senate cleared a $2 trillion bill that really includes a broad variety of assistance. I think folks have labeled this as stimulus, but we're trying to make sure that people realize that this is really about stabilization and recovery, that there will be a time for stimulus, but right now, with so many systems and individuals and families struggling to stay afloat, what we're trying to do now from the federal level is offer stabilization more than stimulus. So it's a really broad-ranging package. Senator Leahy estimates that it will deliver about $2 billion worth of assistance to the state of Vermont in various forms. Some of that will be through traditional programs that are delivered via formula, and others will be through individual assistance to Vermonters and social safety net programs. The biggest chunk of that is going to come from something that's comparable to what we passed in 2009 in the recovery bill that was a fiscal stabilization fund for states. So the senator was adamant that small states like Vermont get a fair treatment through that pool of money. So $1.25 billion will be coming to the state. There's pretty broad discretion for the administration to determine how to allocate those funds, but the idea is there's a recognition of lost revenues coming into the state and to local communities, and those resources will be able to patch holes in state budgets due to losses related to COVID. I don't want to get ahead of what the governor is thinking, but I'm sure there will be some opportunity to be creative and think about how to best help states, help communities, and entities that are really struggling. As you noted, there's some important new provisions around unemployment insurance. I think the headline is that for the first time the federal government is going to allow self-contractors, independent contractors, self-employed gig economy workers, to utilize the unemployment insurance program. Those with limited work histories will be eligible, and they will be eligible both for the increased benefit, which is a $600 increase over what is offered now, as well as extended benefits, and the federal government will be picking up the full cost of these these benefits. There are a couple other important programs that come in. Can I ask you a question on that? When you said the independent contractors would get exactly what would they get? Would they just get the $600, or do they do some calculation on their past earnings and get that as well? That's correct. They'll be eligible for a regular benefit, plus the $600 on top of that. Yes, whatever way they can document their income, that'll be used by DOL, and I'll let DOL speak to their processes and how they plan to roll this out, but that's my understanding. Yes, they'd be eligible to the $600 on top of whatever they might normally receive. What normally would receive would not come out of the UI trust fund, it would come from federal dollars directly, right? Yes, okay. May I just ask on that, Chris? Nice beard. So the money that will go to the self-employed and independent contractors, that will be funneled through our departments of labor in each state? Yes, it will be, that's correct. So it will be able to be managed slightly separately from our trust fund, which is really in trust for the people who've paid into it. I'm going to defer to DOL on that, but that's my understanding. Okay, because I think that's important for all the people who feel like they've paid into it a great sacrifice in some case. Understood. So I know you had Josh Hanford on earlier today. There's a number of discretionary appropriations programs that come via formula. The state's going to receive $4.7 million in CDBG funding, and they will be eligible to receive more. There's going to be a distribution based on economic disruption that will still be determined on how that's going to be allocated. There's going to be about $5 million that comes into the CAP agencies through the Community Services Block Grant to help deal with the consequences of increasingly numbers of unemployed and those experiencing economic disruption in their lives. There's some funding for model received $4.3 million through the Child Care Development Block Grant to help pay for childcare assistance for those critical healthcare sector workers and emergency responders that are deemed essential during this time. There's going to be $4.6 million through emergency solutions grants that comes in to help rapid rehousing of people. And then assistance as well for some of our transportation systems that make sure people are able to get to jobs. We know that transit providers in the state are seeing massive losses because people aren't taking public transit. So the state's going to get about $20 million in a variety of public transit resources to support public transit. There's a host of other things, other things that will, that the state or local communities have utilized through USDA, USDA Rural Development, the Economic Development Administration, lots of good resources that'll be out there to come. But those are the highlights that I wanted to share on behalf of the senator with you for right now. Could you explain the cash payments to, I guess, every citizen that goes above and beyond the unemployment or the self-employment dollars? Yes. Yes. So there is a cash payment IRS has advised us this morning that they're still trying to determine exactly how they will roll this out. But they will, singles individuals are eligible for up to $1,200, $2,400 for a married couple filing a joint return with a addition of $500 per qualifying child dependent under the age of 17. So if you were totaling it up, a family of four could receive $3,400. The rebate has a phase out. Sorry, that's with incomes of $75,000 or less, right? Yeah, I was just getting to that. So the the rebate begins to phase out at 5% for incomes with adjusted gross income above $75,000 for an individual or $150,000 for joint filers. So yes, it does decrease based on the more that you file. We have been hearing concerns from those that that don't file. So if you receive social security benefits, IRS is going to be working with the Social Security Administration to make sure that recipients get checks and working on trying to figure out how non-filers will be eligible to receive a rebate. It's likely that they will need to file in order to receive a rebate if they traditionally haven't. But the IRS is going to be looking to use any other public sector information that they can have to get resources to people. So on that money, I've read that there's a tax credit. Can you describe how that works? You're talking about a tax credit specifically for the IRS rebate? Yes. Well, effectively, it's just a credit that is proactively issued as a rebate is the way I understand it, that they are kind of just forward paying the credit that you might normally claim the way you would a child tax credit when you're going through your regular filing. But the check, so to speak, would be in the mail? Yes, they are looking at if it's possible to utilize direct deposit for those that either filed their 2019 return or if that would work for 2018. Recognizing that not everybody might have the same banking information from year to year. And Michael, can I ask one more question? Absolutely. Going back to the emergency solution grants, you said for rapid rehousing, would that address payment for landlords who have had nonpayment of rent from their tenants? I don't know the answer to that. I think we used to call this program emergency shelter grants. And I think it is targeted, my understanding at the moment is that it's targeted towards assisting folks that are predominantly homeless. So I think what Burlington is doing in terms of setting up temporary housing at North Beach able to utilize resources for that type of emergency shelter. Thank you. There was one other program that I wanted to mention and I'm sure like you all getting calls from constituents that are business owners, there's $377 billion depending on how you count it for a new SBA loan program that would be available to businesses and nonprofits that would include loan forgiveness. Like any government, the federal government traditionally has not made grants to private businesses, but this would convert for the first time a portion of a loan a business takes to effectively grant via loan forgiveness for paying payroll, for paying debt obligations they have rent, other things they need to stay afloat. And it will include eight weeks of forgiveness based on the origination date of the loan. I almost hesitate to get into too many of the details because we really need SBA to be out there talking about the program. They have promised that they will be doing that as soon as the president signs the bill and they have all the rules and regulations in front of them. But I think this is a really important step that we heard loud and clear from businesses that said in order to survive this we need some sort of relief. We don't need a large new loan when we don't know when we might be able to open our doors and when revenues are going to return to normal. So that is one portion. There is also a program, an SBA program that I believe you all are familiar with that the agency of commerce helped certify and stand up in conjunction with SBA, the emergency disaster loan program. There is a change to that program where businesses applying to it will be eligible for a $10,000 grant upfront pretty much as soon as they submit an application. And that money will not need to be repaid. So there are going to be differing loan programs out there. The SBA uses the commercial lenders to get these programs out the door and get these resources out the door. So there's going to be a lot more to come on this. But I know you all, many of you have sent us businesses that have been concerned and so this is a response to those business owners to try and keep them running. So is there an allocation to Vermont for the $377 billion? There is not. This is a national program. Folks will work through the SBA district office in Vermont and through lenders in Vermont that are certified to work with the SBA. There will be other lenders that come online, including those that are purely electronic banks. They will be able to participate. But there is not a set aside of a specific amount for the state of Vermont. And are there any strings attached to strings might not be the right word to the $377 billion or the $10,000 grant? Does that money have to be passed through for payroll or some commitment to reopen? Yeah. There are fewer restrictions on the $10,000 grant up front through the disaster program, the loan forgiveness program. There will be a tie to the level of employment that a business maintains when they take the loan from the period before. So effectively, the goal is for them to keep as many people on payroll as possible. And then the loan forgiveness will be reduced by a soon to be determined amount based on how their employment level compares before and after them taking the loan. We know that for restaurants, I've talked to hundreds of them over the last couple of days where they have laid off all their employees and they're trying to figure out how they will participate in this program and what steps they'll need to take to get people back working, et cetera, to make sure that they qualify. So that's a we'll get into a little bit more detail that with the commissioner. But that was a question that I keep hearing is, you know, do I lay off my workers? Do I furlough them? Do I keep them on and pay them whether I have little to do? And I guess we eventually like to know how these loans to businesses and nonprofits, what the requirements would be there and whether what the what the proper step for these business owners is right now? Yep. Absolutely. That is a massive question about how effective this program will be. And our goal is to have some sort of very public event with the small business administration as soon as they are able to give people clarity, whether that's a statewide telephone town hall or some other venue for them to be able to do questions and answer with with businesses. Okay. Chris, thank you very much. I hope you can stay on because I think we'll bounce back and forth in the next hour or so with questions. Does anybody have any more questions for Chris? Michael, going back to unemployment insurance, how are small business owners affected by that? Are they able to participate in UI under the federal program? Your question is, are the owners themselves able to participate? Yes. That is a question I don't know the answer to. I would happily defer to DOL if they understand that at one point. One other piece that I failed to mention about the increased $600 unemployment insurance benefit, that will count as income as UI typically does, but it will not be used for calculating eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP. With that, thank you and I will hang around for any additional questions that come along. Thanks, Chris. Really appreciate. Thank you. Damian, before I turn over to the commissioner, is there any other highlights based upon what we've been working on that you would like to call our attention to based on your recent understanding of the CARES Act? No. I think Chris hit all of the highlights. There is kind of a detailed set of bullet points in the outline I sent you. It's terrific. You're very welcome. If Chris hasn't sent it over already, I can send the link to the Senate Finance Committee who prepared an outline of the UI and Small Business Tax provisions which you might also find helpful. I think it's a really good plain language outline that the committee might find helpful but I don't think he left anything out that I would have added. Commissioner Harrington, are you on the line? Yes, sir. I'm here. Thank you. So if you want to give us any more of an overview, we're anxious to hear if there is any advice at this point as to how businesses might want to proceed small businesses in terms of the hops and choice of layoffs versus furloughs versus keeping people on. I know it's going to take us a while to understand it all but maybe you could start the process of educating us. Sure. I'm happy to for the record Michael Harrington Interim Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor. The other piece I wanted to point out that Mr. Saunders mentioned and I think it's something the committee should just be very pay very close attention to is that as the federal government looks to provide these additional benefits, the big concerns here at the department are how do we administer these? Many states across the country have 30-year-old systems that are hard-coded and so the ability to essentially just add another benefit and begin to distribute that becomes much harder. So we're going to have our hands full going forward with that. The other piece is that it provides a benefit on top of a benefit that comes out of our trust fund and so far I don't believe there's a mechanism in there to reimburse our trust fund other than the $600 additional federal benefit that would come from the department and so I know we've talked a lot in the past about potential federal relief that would reimburse our trust fund. Right now as it stands it looks like we will be paying a benefit out of our trust fund dollars and then a federal benefit on top of that so just please be aware of that. You know that that again does not leave us with a mechanism to maintain our trust fund for very long. We have testified in the past that the trust fund is very healthy however that was about two weeks ago and a lot has changed since then so I think it's important for us to point out essentially what what the long-term look of our trust fund actually is. We are one of if not the healthiest trust funds in the state prior to or in the country prior to March 13th but right now I think it's going to be a question of which states have to borrow the lease from the federal government and so if we were to look at I'll pick a random number but if we ended up at 20 unemployment with all things being equal we would be looking at enough money in our trust fund to last us about 19 weeks so as we look out you know three or four months we are probably looking at a borrow situation unless there's additional federal monies that help reimburse or refill the coffers if you will of the trust fund. Can I ask you can I interrupt? Yes sir. I was concerned by were you suggesting that the either the money for the self-employed or the $600 extra on top of people's benefits was not going to be fully federally funded? No those will be fully federally funded so what I'm just trying to make a point of is that someone may be eligible for state benefits out of our trust fund and then these federal benefits are on top of that so they will be they will be earning they could be earning in some cases the maximum weekly benefit amount of $513 and additional federal benefits on top of that and I point that out to just show a comparison in the past where we've had a disaster unemployment assistance where money actually came to the state to protect the trust fund and in this case that doesn't seem to be the case and so I just I wanted you to be aware that the as it stands right now there will be no federal money coming to the department for for actual trust fund reimbursement of benefits paid out. Gotcha and how about administrative cost do you feel like the law as far as you can tell is going to give adequate backup support for more staff and more processing I know you say you have an antiquated computer system which I thought we were fixing for the last 5 or 6 years. Yeah me too. How does that and I just want to clear yeah I just want to clarify so you're talking about administrative dollars coming to the state to administer these programs correct. Right and I thought the I thought the like phase 2 or something put some more money in and I don't know about this bill that had some more money for administrative costs. I appreciate the question so we did receive some preliminary emergency administrative grants from the federal government. I'll give you an example though Vermont of them of the 500 million that is out in allotment number one of that 500 million Vermont will receive approximately 918,000 from that so again you know it seems like a lot of money but when it comes to the state it's it's based on the size of the state and and what each state is dealing with for example if you look at California they received looks like 50 59 million in this allotment where we were just shy of a million we do not yet know what the CARES Act will will provide us in administrative dollars we know I think we can through the act look at what the entire pot of money is for the entire country for UI administration but they have not given us the formula yet so that each state can determine what their benefit is going to be for administrative dollars. So may I just clarify that Michael the 918,000 to Vermont DOL is for the ramped up administration needs or for what is that to help you with your ramped up administration over overlay I mean additional cost? Yeah so you are correct senator this is for the ramp up or initial administrative funds that were announced just earlier this week outside of the CARES Act that we're talking about in this case it was just supplemental funding to help states deal with this immediate influx that we saw last last week and into this week. May I just ask another question on the administration so as these funds come in to pay for self-employed and independent contractors will that will you be managing those funds separately from the UI trust fund or are you going to run them through the UI trust fund so that it makes it simpler for you to roll them out? At this point I think it's unclear but anything we can do to not muddy the waters would be our preference for instance in the past when we've used disaster unemployment assistance programs those programs were run 100% manually paper and that was because our UI system could not handle that through the mainframe and so it's likely that in this case too we will be doing a lot of the same. You're kidding our UI system couldn't now absorb that 12 years later? Correct it is the exact it is the exact same UI system we had 12 years ago it's the exact same system we've had for the past 30 years. That's just unbelievable to me what what what what is the eight yeah okay I think so yeah go ahead sir well I think the surprise is I sort of remember when we were dealing with the paid leave proposals from a few years ago we were told that there was a lot of administrative complexities in terms of the hardware and the IT because we were in with another state out midwest developing our computer system and any changes we wanted to make to the development of that computer system would upset the apple cart right but I think Senator Clarkson's question would be similar to what I had I guess we had assumed that by now that development of the arcane computer system from 30 years ago would have been completed by now is it still a work in progress so we have testified on this in in house and and senate to some extent but we were in a consortium if you remember it started about four or five years ago now we had one one state that backed out of that consortium we brought on another state as of the end of 2019 we felt that well one we had reached the end of our federal funding for the program and the state we were working with the state that was doing the bulk of the development was saying we were still a year and a half away from deployment and so at this point those efforts have halted it was and 100% federally funded but we reached the point where we were going to have to start using state dollars to cover the work and so we halted that work because we we had lost faith that the state that was doing the development could provide a solution to give you an example though the US federal government only funds right now consortium work for modernization there have been dozens of consortiums over the past eight to ten years only one of those has been successful and that runs a price tag of about 40 million dollars and right now they're on a trajectory of onboarding states every you know launching new new state programs about every two to four years so you know we're looking right now I can tell you that the the money we got from us dol only covered a fraction of what going with a vendor solution would be but that may be the only solution at this point do you have any ballpark figure as to what the caseload even using your 20% example might be for people getting benefits versus the size of the population who would be getting benefits under the self-employed independent contractor provisions of the federal yeah I don't I don't have the comparison I can tell you that because because there's not a clear mechanism to identify those self-employed individuals in their entirety the numbers that are traditionally used in the industry for Vermont are roughly between 30 and 60,000 individuals who are are self-employed and so we can assume that not all of those will collect benefits and they may not all collect benefits for the full time but it could be as few as 30,000 or as many as 60,000 when you talk about load because we were able to share these numbers today based on the federal number the federal number releasing their numbers if we're looking at the week of March 15th through March 21st so last week on a traditional week we take in about 650 claims or for the week prior I should say so March 8th through the 14th we took in 650 claims roughly last week we took in approximately 14,000 claims yes it's reported in Digger I read it to Michael this morning that you I thought it was 3667 claims Digger had a piece on it this morning yeah so there's there's two pieces and we've been trying to explain that to the media and many of them have called for clarification VT Digger was not one of them so we have to file those claims that were actually processed in our claims system at the end of that week and so we were actually able to process I think our actual number that we reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from our end was 3784 initial claims but if you remember there was this huge influx so the number of claim initial claims actually received by the department was 14,000 wow wow we thought the 3600 was a lot Commissioner do you have an understanding of at this point of how a what a self-employed individual would have to do to qualify for the benefit plus the 600 dollars I do not at this time we're still we're still going through the CARES Act to see if it articulates it but typically what we end up finding is that that that level of granular detail and guidance comes out through the U.S. Department of Labor after the bill is enacted I mean I'm assuming that a self-employed individual could not just get this money they'd have to claim that they're they have no business anymore would that be a fair assumption or could they just claim it by virtue of their income in the past maybe has I mean if their income if they're sustaining their income I assume they're not qualified for this benefit just like a person who continues to be employed is no longer qualified for the is not qualified for unemployment benefits you mean you have to be unemployed go ahead no I mean I just to clarify Michael's question Michael you're saying that you an individual has to have made a formal claim in order to receive the 600 dollars right is that not only make a formal claim but somehow prove that they've lost their income if they're an unessential worker wouldn't that be proof if their business was closed because they're deemed unessential I assume so but there could be there could be independent practices out there and that whole code thing we saw like contractors working it's all very complicated so I guess we'll have to wait for instruction I would like to move on to the question commissioner that I wrote you about this morning and I copied the committee on could you walk us through for a small business owner you know what they're they're they're being hit hard right now maybe they're entirely closing down their business do they have some choices as to whether they can somehow maintain payroll and what that does in terms of unemployment benefits whether they sort of suggest a return date or they keep people on full payroll or they do a traditional layoff what are their options and how does it how does it interplay with this new law yes thank you so certainly if the employer has the ability to continue to pay their workforce you know we would encourage that but again there are a couple different factors in terms of making people eligible for benefit so if we're talking about the federal law I think that remains to be seen to what level like you said what level of validation they would have to provide or articulation but if they are you know these people are laid off or I think you also mentioned furloughed we don't really contemplate the difference I think they're they're the same under our our system they're a temporary temporarily displaced if you will so from from that position it it looks like anybody whose whose work and wages are impacted will be covered under this federal program certainly you know the benefit of remaining employed the benefit to the employer is that they don't risk the the possibility of their of not getting that workforce back once they reopen so you know these individuals may end up finding a other work so again the benefit to the employer is that they're able to retain the workforce that they have but the benefit to the employee could be the difference in what the overall benefit is so if they are earning more being employed than they would on benefits you know the added value is in the is in the income to that for them and we've gotten I got a I've gotten a couple of questions I don't know if there's a standard commonplace way this is treated but people were asking questions about health insurance if if they if they lay somebody off how would that impact ongoing health insurance I mean I I know there's I forget the name of the program that cobra is something that can keep them going but is that something you've been hearing about so we have had a lot of questions about health benefits it's something that we are not if you will preventing people from doing or having it negatively impact their UI benefits some employers have asked if they are able to continue to pay health care benefits for their employees which we support fully but like you said there alternative programs as well like cobra and others so it ranges both but essentially if it's really at the employer's discretion if they want to maintain benefits for their employees I can sorry everyone this is just been sure I can add to what the commissioner just said I do know that Blue Cross and Blue Shields which we've been reporting to employers that they have open enrollment they've opened a special enrollment period for the next 30 days so individuals who are separated from employment are able to access Vermont Health Connect in an open enrollment period they are additionally Vermont Health Connect is delaying and not canceling policies for for individuals who are not able to pay so if you do receive benefit but find that the premium is too much and you aren't able to make your payment your benefit will not be canceled so I just wanted to add that yeah thanks that's been very helpful and I spoke with a navigator who who says that there it hasn't been marketed particularly well and so people don't know about it but even so she she learned about it the open enrollment from me asking her and she said but now a couple days later she's getting flooded with requests yeah they do have something on their website but I have not seen any kind of like math communication about it um there hadn't been yeah yeah um I don't know if you or Chris can answer this question is the six hundred dollar bump that the feds are going to pay for um is that available uh across the board for whatever amount of unemployment insurance you get so let's assume you you get partially laid off and you get a hundred dollar weekly check are you still entitled to the hundred six hundred dollars or do you have to be fully unemployed do we lose people here no the commissioner Harrington here I was waiting to see if Chris wanted to answer he's probably more more apt at this we're not that deep into it yet so it sounds like it will be across the board that there will not be eligibility restrictions if you will based on earnings and so forth so but I'll leave it to Chris if he's still online to answer that's my understanding as well okay yeah this is Damian weighing in here that's the way the language reads in the uh in the actual cares act it says the amount determined under state law plus an additional six hundred dollars okay um I know I have do other people have questions I know I have others I'm trying to articulate them in terms of the choices that business owners would have here um Michael we had talked about people who were getting some UI but having their employer kind of backfill so that their wages main were maintained how would that be affected by the the uh cares act well I can let uh the commissioner and Chris answer that but I think there's going to be less of a need to do that because um I think that the six hundred dollars I think you know part of the as I understand if part of this the the calculation of the six hundred dollars was designed in part to sort of make the average wage earner pretty close to whole obviously there are going to be people who are making more right now if they're working where they're not going to be made whole um I would assume commissioner that is a dollar for dollar if an employer gives well no there's the the the partial income disregard so uh there would be some value for an employer to give money over to a high income wage earner in terms of trying to make them whole I didn't articulate that very well uh commissioner do you want to weigh in on on that issue of what would happen if an employer wanted to give uh some wage replacement uh to the worker whether it it takes them over what they were making or brings them up to what they were making sure uh it's unclear to us right now what the impact would be um and and we continue to work through this even before this bill uh passed and and that there are employers who want to contribute and we're doing the best we can to make sure those um you know a supplement by the the employer doesn't um uh doesn't impact negatively on someone's eligibility uh and we're we're dealing with that um but again I it's unclear at this point what the CARES Act would allow for um my my initial interpretation would be that there wouldn't be an impact that at the straight six hundred dollars um but again that remains to be seen at this point so I would have it would have an impact on the UI portion of the payment right right you can reduce it again um it it depends on how it's been structured like I said we've had some employers ask this question uh where they they would like to you know be able to provide an additional partial benefit to their employees on top of um what their UI uh payment would be in order to make the employee whole and to not lose that employee to another employer um again we're trying to these are kind of uncharted territories in traditional sense that they were still receiving remuneration from their employer that would disqualify them either in part or in whole um but again recognizing that this is a very unique situation we're in so if there are ways to work around that we're really trying to work with the employers to do that um I guess a general question that I I would think we're all interested in is what should our constituents do first right first first the in the claiming category and then the employer category if they have questions I mean I've gotten at least a dozen questions like someone saying here's my individual circumstances do you think I'm eligible um do you have general advice for us and for them at this point as to what I know your lines must be very busy and is there I've been sort of saying you know the first step is I might you might want to fill out the online claim then you'll get your answer and even if you're denied I guess no harm done but um it'd be good for us as legislators to hear what your advice to the public would be sure the I think you're right on the mark there you know the the most important thing should be if someone is impacted by this they lose their job whether permanently or temporarily or if they have to leave their job uh under the right circumstances that would make them eligible the first thing they should do is file a claim what I'd hate for them to do is try to call general assistance and not be able to get through and delay the the filing of their or opening of their claims so they should do that first we do have some information online we do receive emails across the department on a regular basis we receive them through social media if they really want the the information that is specific to their circumstance the best thing they can do is call our call center and that way someone can someone knowledgeable in the system and in the program can walk them through what their eligibility would be um but you're right the first thing they should do is call that claims line we do have you know frequently asked questions online we try to update those and provide guidance as available to us I think the the media has done a good job of it of keeping this on the forefront each and every day as things have changed but you know each each case and each person's situation is different and the best way for them to get the the complete information is to call our claim center and that's true for the employer the employer line as well as the employee's line correct uh again you know we can speak in generalities but um each employer situation is going to be different as well um we do get uh we do get a lot of questions on on a variety of means um but the best thing to do is and is call our employer lines as well okay that's that's very helpful does anyone have additional questions at this point for the commissioner oh I guess I just like to because I have a business call tonight with four chambers in the Windsor County area and this is our third call and uh if they've been really useful for exactly that kind of question and answer and with this federal overlay um and expectation is the six hundred dollars and the self-employment and independent contractors will all be funneled in some fashion through the Department of Labor is that right and then is that right Michael yes ma'am yes and then the the direct assistance will come from IRS directly to the individuals so that will no one has to do anything about that that is my understanding yes so that will be like sort of mana from heaven arriving in the in the post box or in your direct deposit that that's the way I understand it as well okay thanks but yeah the only other thing I was going to add um because it would probably help uh your constituents as well is that uh beginning next week we're going to be looking to offer some regularly scheduled town hall meetings uh both for employers um small business owners eventually we'll do one on uh self-employed individuals we'll probably do one on um healthcare benefits and paid leave and uh maybe even claimants as well but uh we're going to post those on our website there'll be a couple a week that we do um with days and times to be determined but it'll be a way for uh an employer to simply dial in and listen to uh what we can share on individual topics uh probably for a half hour 45 minutes those those will be fabulous and just given our response here in Windsor County with these four chambers you know I don't know how many we have range from 300 to 600 people on a call the just being able to hear it and then ask questions has been incredibly helpful so I applaud you for doing that it's great they really people really need need that town hall uh opportunity great thank you yeah I I echo that uh it's very confusing at this point and you've clarified it quite a bit and I think the public is very confused at that point but I mean it's only you know the bill has only been publicly known of the details as of last night so things are moving very fast at this point um anything else uh you or Chris think that we should know about that we haven't covered this is taken less time than I thought um but I guess we'll get more details in the days ahead uh and also in that question is there anything that you would like to see from the legislature other than to stay out of out of your way pay for the computer upgrade I mean I can't believe we're still in the where we are with the recession I just can't believe that oh neither can I so we'll we'll work on a solution together yeah that's that my guess is maybe the biggest thing you want right now it definitely it definitely would make our life our life easier for sure I'm sorry hi all this is this is jess ventoner um I did just want to let you anyone on the phone or in the committee know that I have been fielding um questions for the commissioner and the team at labor because their inboxes are extremely inundated so please keep using me as a resource for constituent questions if they're urgent or even if they're not urgent but you just need to get you know you need at least someone to respond within an hour or two um I can be that resource for you all and jess I we appreciate that uh I had let jess know and I will let just let remind the committee because we all felt the same way I think that um secretary curly was terrific on the call last night with us on joint rules and she was very helpful in clearing up some some questions we all had and we really appreciated her her calm and her humor and uh her willingness to uh to interpret broadly some of some of the direction from on high is the uh the call that during that call she suggested we email kendall yes with employer questions of whether they would be deemed essential or not is that still the preferable way to go you can definitely do that kendall forwards all of those to me you can definitely copy yeah you can definitely copy and kendall for awareness if I do respond to you I would copy and kendall anyway so you can copy the both of us I really want to thank you because I mean you have been incredibly responsive I've been trying to screen as many as I can to send to you but the ones I've sent to you uh you've responded quickly and with uh thorough answers so I appreciate that let me uh interject something michael if I may absolutely that that's related to the process of providing answers to the letters for exception to the closing rules in other words companies who believe that they should be exempt because they fit the categories in accd's message I know that we're talking about accd here rather than labor but these two kind of get conflated to an extent and from what I'm seeing from at least two constituent companies uh up here that process isn't working the applications aren't being answered nor is correspondence to the department being answered I have one company for example that laid off 45 people yesterday because they couldn't get an answer as to whether or not they qualified for an exemption now we heard from secretary curly yesterday that companies that fit the yes answers on the list that they provided for example doing national defense work and and so on in manufacturing uh would be exempt but I had one company who said well the rules say that I've got to get an answer uh to this exception letter and I didn't get an answer and I can't get anybody to respond to me and what I found in accd I can't get anybody to respond to me either so I and this is not the only company I had another large company that elected to go ahead and continue but they've not gotten an answer yet either so I do believe that we have a problem that we need to recognize um can I speak up it's uh commission of goldstein understand the uh the frustration we um first we we want to make clear that there is no such thing as exception letters um we are sending out guidance as we speak to people who came into us and we've collected their emails and and contact information as you can imagine the the response to the executive order have been in the thousands um so what we are doing instead is sending out sector guidance that is happening even as I speak it started last night um so our advice is that people should look at the executive order the cisa list uh to see if they fit into that category we want businesses to make that determination based on the executive order not where we are going to say yes you're you're good you're not good um don't you require them to submit an application uh what we required was what we asked for was for them to fill out a form so that we could collect the information so we knew what we were dealing with in terms of numbers and sectors and who's impacted and what are the questions and that helped us formulate the guidance well and if both companies that have contacted me indicated that they expected a response to the application for and we're concerned that they got no response understood I mean we are getting people saying that and we're trying as much as possible to get out the list saying you know please do not wait for a response from us to determine whether or not you are within the confines of the executive order well when when you do that are you contacting the companies telling them not to wait or do you have something published telling them not to wait yes so what we did is we answered all emails that came into the either the covid email box that we had separately set up we also wrote to everybody on the distribution list for all the forms that got sent in it prefilled a spreadsheet with everyone's contact information but it might just be where we've crossed paths this started last night because of the volume um it started last night and went into today we're still we are still in the process of getting that information out uh in the meantime any party who does come in we are sending them a letter to say do not expect I can read out the exact um verbiage but basically it's not to expect a letter from us saying yes or no it's really about following the guidance the calls were overwhelming uh we were getting 70 calls a second you know it was just you could not answer it I had understand the volume and the pressure that everybody is working under but in my from what I've seen the guidance is unclear and as an example of you know you you may have sent out but I got 25 this afternoon has just sent me a note just to let you know we have still received no reply from the commerce department our application to stay open uh if the guidance had said something to the effect and maybe still can that you should not expect an answer to us this that uh if the event that you fit the guidelines as we have distributed it you you may stay open if that's if that's if that's your position but it's just not clear to people hello Joan oh I'm sorry I was muted um yeah understood I mean we are we are pivoting uh changing messaging on voicemail I mean they're bound to be people disappointed and uh we're we're working through it so Joan this is Becca whoops we just lost you Becca can you hear me yeah yeah okay um how how best can we help get the word out it seems like you're all working as hard as you possibly can with the number of phone lines that you have what can we do as senators to get the word out in the best way to the people that need this information I think they should go to the accd website and I think they should read the executive order and if they do not fit within those confines and if they have doubt they should air on the side of public health that is our guidance okay thank you people do not like the message I think they don't want to close I think that's most of the pushback I mean that the injury is enormous it's enormous uh yeah I just want to speak to folks who were not on the accd call with joint rules last night I just want to speak on behalf of the the agency I know that everyone at the agency who has an eye on the commerce end of the agency feels completely heartbroken at the situation that's happening with companies right now and I just I know that we're all feeling so much pressure and anxiety from our businesses and I just I know if they could work any harder they would and I just I want us all to hold that and uh may I just echo what Becca said I thought actually one of the moving things that Lindsay said uh yesterday was that you know this is precise we are we are asking people to do everything that we don't want them to do you know we want them to be in business we want them to grow and here we are having to ask them to do things we would never in a month of Sundays be asking them to do and besides that feeling you know you could just feel with her the you know the you know that Joan and and Lindsay are asking our our business community to do everything that they're wired not to do and I I so appreciated Lindsay's conflict and sharing that very honestly with us I thought that was that was that articulated the problem right there I'm in no mean by no means criticizing Lindsay's message uh the importance of it and what she said she said the right things what the agency wants to do are the right things what I'm suggesting though is there needs to be clarity these problems would not exist the message that was distributed on ACC's website has sufficient clarity so that people knew what they were supposed to do what Lindsay tells us as a group of senators is one thing we understand it but it needs to be transmitted directly from ACCD to the people who should be reading that message yes and we are doing that we are doing that I you know it's first and foremost they they do not need certification or approval from us and people did you know misconstrue that other people got it right away they knew that the message was a was a tough one but they knew that they had to stop construction like just as an example you know so we are asking them to use the guidance to make a determination of whether they may continue in-person operations under the governor's executive order and we ask them to please go through it uh and then there are other people who have federal um determinations through the critical infrastructure workers um I'm sorry there it's called the CISA document it's federal guidance um they look at that and they have to make that determination we cannot tell them I mean that's what a lot of people are waiting for and they shouldn't they need to make that determination and it's a tough one and yes it was slower than we expected we definitely set up a bad expectation that we would have been able to get to everybody and we would have been able to do it more timely but it was it's just overwhelming before we wrap up I had a question back up back to the the $377 billion for business owners and nonprofits um so if I understand it correctly we don't know at this point whether somebody could get those loans regardless of whether they keep people on payroll is that my understanding correct you mean for the federal you mean the federal programs that are being implemented as a result of this bill from last night yeah I think Commissioner Harrington and Chris talked about it and I think they said they did not know I mean I it seems to me that there's there's gotta be some connection otherwise somebody who's likely to shut down would shut down let their workers get unemployment and then they would continue to go in and get some loans and grants and it would be financially foolhardy to to go ahead and not let my employees get unemployment pay that knowing that I'm going to be reimbursed yeah I agree with that I agree with your conclusion on in fact the businesses that we spoke to um many of them just laid people off and do not have the cash flow will not have the cash flow to pay right could somebody um what I read briefly could somebody uh I guess it would be commissioner can you talk just a little bit about uh reimbursable employers uh my understanding is that the feds are gonna pay 50 reimburse them for 50 percent of what they pay out to the people they lay off I'm I'm not prepared to speak to that at the moment I don't have that information in front of me um and I will confirm with uh Cameron Wood our director uh and our general council um and maybe Chris Saunders uh could speak to that based on his knowledge of the bill so that's that's the non-profits and uh municipal yeah I think and maybe Damian if Damian's still on the call maybe he can talk to it he could be the only person well I won't say the only person but I was amazed to hear you actually read the bill but that's great it was uh riveting party with the bill I wish that was the case was that right I need a bit of sleep uh yeah so the provision in there related to um governmental entities and non-profit organizations is there's funding in there to reimburse the non-profits and the governmental entities for 50 percent of the amounts that they pay into the state unemployment trust fund so they still have to make the payments to the state unemployment trust fund but there will be a provision in there to get them reimbursement for 50 percent of what they pay in uh there is also direction to the U.S. Secretary of Labor to issue guidance to state departments of labor regarding additional flexibility on the payment of the reimbursable amounts and the assessment of penalties and interests is um to those workers I assume also would be entitled to the $600 Damian workers are just how regular private employers that grew oh am I breaking up yeah we didn't hear any of that really okay let me try again so uh the uh the laid-off workers from a non-profit or a governmental entity are treated the exact same as a worker from a private employer in terms of the benefits they receive and their eligibility the differences in how their benefits are paid for with private employer it's it's paid for up front through the tax rate for the non-profit or the governmental employer that elects to be a reimbursing employer it's it paid for through reimbursement okay good um so does anybody else have any questions this has been incredibly helpful um we're going to continue to learn as we go forward I'm very when I hear so far I'm very thankful to our congressional delegation and all the work they've done and oh not a washington because this is a lifesaver um the uh we're going to move on to workers comp unless anybody has any questions right now michael I don't I don't know if this is the time to ask but it has to do with experience ratings and we had a question from adult daycares right questioning what would happen if they lay people off and then going forward aren't able to rehire their whole workforce how would they be impacted we leave that ask that question to the commissioner so again I think the question would be whether or not the employer uh if the employer does not hire them back um you know well one I in most cases here we're talking about um tax rate forgiveness um in in most of these cases so uh they received their benefits throughout the period for the maximum amount allotted um and in this in most of these cases there would be no negative impact to employers anyways um other than that I again I there is no if if the employer closes or if the employer doesn't hire certain people back um that doesn't really really weigh into it unless I'm missing the point of the question well I think one of the things in the bill we passed there was uh there was some time limitations of eight weeks or right expanded is that if this goes on for longer or if the person I thought there was a requirement of uh rehiring or restart up of well if the business doesn't start up I don't know where you're going to get the money from but but yeah yes I understand where you're going now yes so there was a provision yes requiring the employer to hire people back um the way we assess uh the impact to the employer is on a per claimant basis um so when we relieve employers of charges it's on a per claimant basis so if they let's say they laid off 10 people and only hired five of those people back they would be relieved of the charges for those five people that they hired back I guess the question is still remains um you know what um protection is there for these especially things like adult daycares or even child care um or businesses that aren't able because they don't have the people coming that they don't have um you know whatever how are they going to be affected and from what I'm hearing from the commissioner um they would be impacted only for those people that they didn't hire back I mean I think we talked a little bit about this when we talked about seasonal businesses and the way they would be rehiring they wouldn't be able to rehire say at the end of the crisis because the business wasn't active at that point in the time uh but how does this then translate to these other situations I guess we'll wait and see yeah I will say in most cases if an employer does not reopen um you know that is a loss to the department in terms of of uh contributions so uh again if they were to open on a smaller scale than when they closed originally they would be impacted proportionately for whoever they hire back or don't hire back thank you so we should continue it's a good question and I think we need to continue to look at that Cheryl um because what I'm hearing is that uh if the we've given uh an exception to the charge ability for a certain time period but if the person is not rehiring there could be impact on the employer uh so um I think we need to continue to have a dialogue about that and we do have some time because we've given at least a an eight week period there and it could be longer so um but I think it's an important point um okay uh thank you all very much and we're going to move on to anybody have any else any other questions I'm sorry no okay you know that little shake of the head made you uh come up on my screen Allison yeah I could do my jumping jacks now we all need a seventh inning stretch there you go there you go um okay let's move on to workers comp um um I had been approached by some labor groups feeling that there were some uh inflexibility in our statutes that may provisions that may not could not be weighed uh I'm a little um fuzzy on how much communication there may have been uh with the department I think there has been some um so maybe we can start off with uh Steve Monahan uh to tell us whether or not they feel they have the necessary flexibility in law or whether they need some more or would want some more in terms of workers comp claimants um uh getting a fair shake under the circumstances uh good afternoon Steve Monahan director of workers compensation and safety at the vermont department of labor um I had actually had not received any communication from any groups uh until about an hour ago I heard from um some claimants attorneys uh asking that we issue a moratorium on discontinuing benefits um there is some inflexibility in that statute uh because the statute currently provides that the carrier provide the claimant and the department with seven days notice and if we are unable to get to it within the seven days the termination automatically takes effect uh been looking I've been studying for more than two weeks now uh trying to figure out a way to lessen that harm uh I've been preparing a bulletin that would require uh prior to discontinuing based on uh you know insurers belief that a claimant had reached medical end result that uh there be evidence that the medical authority reaching that opinion had consulted with the claimants doctor at least so we would have some assurance the difficulty that claimants are experiencing and some insurers is that um a lot of the medical care that might be provided is not currently available uh under the current guidelines for what's non-essential care so things like PT that might be necessary um has not been occurring um we've we've encouraged people to utilize telemedicine that would there are ways to do some of this uh that way it is acceptable under our medical fee schedule Steve can I back up for a second um sure I'm not 100 percent sure that the all members of the committee are familiar with the workers comp system and I don't want to a big tutorial but can you just lay a framework a little bit about how you get to a this discontinuance uh point in time uh so people could understand what's clearly what's happening here um sure in short I think people have the basic understanding if you get hurt at work an injury arises out of and in the course of employment you get workers compensation initially the claimant has to prove that they have an injury and that it occurred at work or was related to work um once you start receiving benefits the burden of discontinuing those benefits shifts to the insurance company but benefits can be stopped if you return to work they at full time they can be stopped if you reach medical end result which means this is as good as you're going to get or they can be stopped because you refuse to cooperate with treatment or other requirements like looking for work we uh one of the things that um proposing is that we uh not permit discontinuance based on looking for work for the short term because uh that might very well be futile and there's Vermont Supreme Court case law rather old but case law that supports that determination in some cases so in a nutshell the insurance company seeks to discontinue usually it's because they believe either the claimant isn't complying with the rules or has reached medical end result and they've had an independent medical exam uh to support that opinion um claimants then have the opportunity to bring evidence forward in their favor but under the current situation they're not able to do so if they can't get a hold of their doctor and I don't I don't know if you want a much more elaborate because no I mean everybody knows I could go on for days yeah no no no it's shaping up to be a dilemma clearly uh yeah people have some rights but because of the situation out here um they can't fully exercise those rights and uh so what do we do about it I mean it sounds like for one of the things that struck me is that the governor made an executive order or some statement that in terms of unemployment um the work search requirement would be suspended uh I'm not sure why it wouldn't be suspended really in the case of workers comp and now we have a secondary issue where a worker who may want to get a medical exam to question the discontinuation has an inability to get that um so what is the is the department thinking about changing anything and you said something where you're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place the statute says you have to do this and do you need a legislative fix or the things you could do administratively to get to a um some more flexible result well uh it's been suggested that we have some inherent authority in the face of an emergency to issue a bulletin suspending certain rules um not entirely clear that I would have that afforded but um I was preparing a bulletin to in some respects uh changed the rules I think we do have authority to suspend the operation of certain rules in an emergency um and uh that's what I was leaning towards and preparing a bulletin to go out to do um in terms of the actual discontinuances um you know I think the staff would review but if we added this requirement that they uh had to have additional evidence or communicated with the physician or something of that effect then the ability of staff when reviewing them would be easier to reject the discontinuance the other possibility is um to direct the payments continued and state that we would give credit against any permanency that might ultimately be owed um that would work in in some cases not necessarily assist where the injury was minor and there wasn't a great deal of permanency okay um maybe we can turn it over to uh David Mickenburg uh who's on the list representing the concerns that the claimants have and hear from him and then we'll go back to you Steve and anybody else who might want to comment on this my my my I have a feeling that after talking with the committee you know the suggestion might be to even the fact that you haven't had much communication I'm surprised to hear that but uh I'm not saying anybody's at fault here but um that may be that over the next few days you consult not only with claimants attorneys and people like David but also with the insurance companies and see if there's a a compromise that can be reached I think there's a feeling of everybody's in this together that maybe we can find a solution that works let's hear from David at this point can you hear me yep and we can see you yes happy to be here um so I'm a I appreciate I know that some of our practitioners have sent uh notes to Steve over the days I'm sorry he hasn't received them but we understand everyone's working under difficult circumstances when this issue of discontinuance really focuses on whether or not we put claimants in sort of harm's way or the community in harm's way and it's not just medical end but there's a variety of Steve mentioned uh work searches but there's a variety of mechanisms or within the rules a variety of requirements of compliance things like work searches but also to continue medical care um VR work um IME examinations things that would require claimants to be in the community either in their medical in a medical office or to be out there looking for work which would potentially raise the risk for themselves and the community so happy to hear that the department is thinking about that and I think it's important that as we um tell people to to stay um at home we also don't put them in financial risk of losing their ongoing benefits it's been suggested that there be a straight moratorium on form 27s which is the discontinuance that's one thought but at the very least uh we'd be happy to work with the department or the committee to figure out ways in which um claimants aren't being asked to uh be exposed to greater risk than they otherwise should be or expose others to greater risk just to maintain their ongoing benefits um it's already difficult enough because once a form 27 is filed you have one week of benefits and then your the default is to cut off the benefits until claimants can then produce evidence there's a potential to get one more week um at the discretion of the department if you present evidence but essentially once a form 27 is filed that that marks the end of your benefits until that can be adjudicated and adjudication even under normal circumstances can take quite some time so uh in the department's rules under rule 12 there's a list of a variety of reasons to discontinue benefits and then a catch all requirement of non-compliance with any and all requirements in the statute that I think is an area that we would be happy to look at with the department and the committee to make sure that claimants aren't uh unreasonably put at risk um or unreasonably have their benefits cut off with no ability to marshal the evidence to to demonstrate that it shouldn't be so encouraged by Steve's comments but this is something which affects thousands and thousands of workers around the state um and think needs to be addressed in in in short order to make sure that people one aren't exposing themselves or exposing others but also are able to maintain their benefits and I remind you besides the the state which is self-insured these benefits are are being provided by and large by um by insurance companies that cover these claims so has there been uh I was going to ask how many people are impacted by discontinuations in the week or month and have there been this is probably a question for Steve has there been any specific complaint to date of a claimant who's been injured by not being able to get to the doctor and how has that been handled in the department in the last week I guess uh I'm not sure we've had any in the last week in the last two weeks this is Steve Monaghan again the last two weeks we've had a couple of complaints um complainants who either did not want to go to an independent medical exam um or who were have in one case who were having difficulty getting um an alternative position we had granted a two week extension are still in that period we've encouraged uh physicians to utilize telemedicine there's no reason why independent evaluations can't be done uh through telemedicine without having to require the claimant to travel in most instances um there may be some objections some people like to actually see the individual but at this time I think a more reasonable approach would be telemedicine both the safety of the physician and the claimant we're happy to work with some folks we are committed to the maximum extent possible to maintain and ensure that people get the benefits they're entitled to and my staff even though we've been busy arranging for them to work remotely to lessen uh risk as well um we're still pretty heavily paper driven so they're in and out collecting files but um my staff know that our goal is to maintain benefits uh to the extent practicable and as I said we're looking at um it's already in the statute that if we direct the payments continue we can at the request to the insurer be credited against any future indemnity owed so I think there is that safety valve already built into the statute right that sounds like an elegant solution in the cases where there is some permanency but maybe doesn't work when there's not have you talked to any of the insurance companies we just heard on the other uh hearing we were having that Blue Cross Blue Shield is like giving an open enrollment period and forgiving premiums is there any willingness to do that by the property and casualty groups on workers com I have I have not heard of that I know uh we got one complaint that we referred to the department of financial regulation that one insurer had decided not to renew policies of certain nursing homes which would throw them into the pool in a higher rate and I do have to remind people that while the benefits are paid by insurers they're they're ultimately paid by our employers the same people who are getting crunched on the other end because they'll pay through premiums right so while initially it looked at the start of the year like premiums would be going down we can't be sure what impact this is going to have on the collection of those premiums if the payrolls drop and so that may result in a dramatic increase in premiums next year if there's been a dramatic decrease in payroll and a corresponding increase in claims or claim payments but okay there are many moving pieces yep so if we it sounds like you're amenable to working with David and others on some solution to to go forward or to bring back to us is there are there people that like in the next week who are going to lose their benefits as far as you know that may have a exception I would say I mean we get in a normal year we get more than you get I'm trying to think it might be 750 per staff member notices to discontinue in a normal year many of them are rejected but so without even though it hasn't been directly brought to my attention I'm sure there are people whose benefits are in danger of ending but are they people that may have complaints against their termination I mean are they people who can't go to an IMD or have different well there's there's a lot of people who normally would be returning because they were going back to work and that's no longer available so I think I think there may be issues they there may actually not be a dispute that they reach medical end result but it'll be a drastic change they would if if in fact their workers comp ends they do if they apply within six months they are eligible to file for unemployment but that's a dramatic decrease generally what they were making it sounds to me like you were close to making a a decision at least on that reason for termination of putting those in abeyance I mean just like we're doing with all yes I think looking at as I said some very old cases from the Vermont Supreme Court dating back to the 20s as support for that but I am looking at at that I'm happy to work with the claimants attorneys and insurers to come up with some kind of a solution okay well I would be happy to convene the workers comp the bar association workers comp group right um well I would hope that speaking for myself I would hope that you would do that in short order and come back to us next week and give us a report but I also am concerned for people right now who are being terminated because they can't go out and seek another job or there's no job to be had or whatever that at least that policy could be put in abeyance for a short time by simply a guideline change or a directive to your claims examiners to say let's hold off on those until we switch this out um does anybody else have any other questions or thoughts on this we'll schedule it again for next week and see what the proposals come back with Mr. Chair can I just raise one other issue after the one issue just to think about and there's obviously phases of what's going on related to workers comp and every other issue we're dealing with now one other issue is and this has come up around the country and other civil litigation contexts but workers comp would be no different is around the potential for and this would probably need to be a statutory fix around tolling the statute of limitations in terms of making claims you know the three-year statute limitations to file a claim but also within that time there's a six years to make once the claim has been filed to make a claim for certain benefits and in some instances some people during this time may not be aware of their right to make a claim for certain benefits and therefore may lose their right to make that claim so it's not something maybe urgently to look at but I wanted to put it on your radar as something which is popping up around the country in discussion with practitioners so we're the general rule that we're operating on at least in these next few weeks is only to deal with bills that are directly related and and urgently needed by the related to the the COVID-19 situation right so I don't know that we might get to something like that later on and I don't know that people who are unaware of their rights are necessarily made unaware of their rights because of the virus they could still file those claims remotely or talk to their lawyer though I don't see it as a oppressing need but we perhaps could talk about some more next week yeah I wouldn't see that as this is Steve Monaghan see that as a oppressing need I think one Vermont's three year and six years is a lot more time than than people have in most states and I don't think I don't really see it as an issue based on my entirely optimistic belief that this is more of a short term as in maybe through August or by by the end of the year issue and not one that will prompt I think certainly think if it starts to look like it's becoming an issue we can consider consider it later but it doesn't seem like an issue to me at this point and I think most I think the saturation has been pretty good as to what people understand their rights are out there based on the frequent communications we receive at the department okay thank you both very much all right committee do you have any further questions like I say we'll take it up again next week hope the parties can work it out okay um thank you folks you could sign off now okay thank you we're going to move on to uh the issue of hoarding or maybe not is Erin seek christ online now so I wanted to discuss this with the committee I think we talked about a little bit we may not need to prolong this and we can get in touch with Erin Teller we don't need it uh one idea I had uh I could I've had it for a while and I'm not sure I've gotten any traction with it um I think there was a press release with the governor and other folks on the urging grocery stores and to have senior hours in the morning and stuff and I think Erin wrote me at that time saying there might be something forthcoming on the hoarding issue I don't like to use that word but the way I define uh the solution that I would see that I suggested to her and Jim Harrison at one point was just why don't the grocery stores put limits on precious items that to say at the checkout counter just just say you know our store policy is only two 12 packs of paper towels at this point not no law no executive order just say that to your customers they have that ability to do that as a business practice and I said and you know maybe my committee or maybe the governor would support you in that so you could point to us saying we suggested you do that and so um that's what I wanted to talk to her about I don't know if people feel it's an issue or we should be concerned about it we could do a resolution if we wanted to just some stores are already doing it right example in St. Alvin's in their paper towel aisle limits the number of rolls of paper towels that you can buy two at a time okay so yeah so the question is do does the committee feel like we do need to do any more is it widespread would the grocers appreciate us making a suggestion like that I don't think it's some states have passed laws some some states have um have had executive orders I don't think we need to go that far I just wanted to give the grocery store some backup say the public policy officials want us to do this so I'm doing it in part because of them I wish they like you say some of them were just doing it on their own but again we're all into this together I don't know if we need to beat this horse anymore just let it go or what would it help if Aaron is Aaron on the line it doesn't he's going to be on the line at 345 but I think if if she was able if Aaron was able to send out a letter to all the retailers from both the governor the legislature and that organization uh asking them to please put limits on the products that are you know it's needed that's right and that's all I asked her to do and she came back and said she was concerned for antitrust that a trade association shouldn't be telling their members to do that well then maybe just from the legislature and the governor that's what that's what I was thinking that yeah we could if we maybe even just our committee we could just send her a letter and say and I say can you share this letter with your members I think that would be great I think that's a good idea I think it would be helpful to have for her to have something to send out to all of them to give them I mean to really ask them to to limit the products that uh that the public seem to find beyond precious I think the governor has already spoken to this several times but I know that the problem we're running into here is that most of the grocery stores and small stores are putting limits on but Walmart isn't and that's a place I'd like to see some um direction or some requests for them to start limiting it's it's pretty apparent in the role I wanted to give you I want to talk about this now because I wanted to give you guys some more time off the phone I know Becca has to leave soon so Denise or Faith can you see connect with uh Erin and get her on now as opposed to waiting another 10 minutes while we're waiting can we ask Becca a question sure uh joint rules is the tax commissioner this afternoon who's on I haven't received an update yet I know we were trying to get Craig Bolio on the line but I was just checking email I haven't received a confirmation of that yet I know Tim's been flat out so um but that's who I think we're hearing from that's what I thought thanks and I have a question about the timing for the new UI regs that are going into effect I know that you know the the bill has to be finalized but able to tell people how much longer they're going to have to wait before they can start collecting are you talking about our bill yeah I think you could tell them they should file right now I think they're going to follow those I assume the governor signing it today or did already and I think they're all on board I think they process it that way as well so I wouldn't wait on telling people I'm not sure who it is you could ask them to identify themselves that Aaron it's Aaron hi Aaron we were just we're just talking about you yes so we had a few extra minutes so I sort of set the stage where is there any new developments on the issue of uh grocery stores uh being encouraged to set limits on products um so as I shared last week we we are not able to encourage stores in a strong way to set limits um aside from stores having conversations uh among their teams I am seeing excuse me increased uh increased participation I guess increased action in setting limits my understanding is that they've expanded the limits from outside of the the paper products aisle to other areas within the store I've also been in touch with retailers and distributors and at this point large grocers are sharing that anything the customers would want to hoard is not available in large quantities right now stores will start to look fuller in the next couple of weeks and I we anticipate that once they start looking fuller people will become less anxious and stop buying in such large quantities did you send me something or somebody sent me something about a press release I think on store hours um yes we sent a press release out late last week encouraging all retailers and grocers around the state to designate hours for vulnerable vermoners or provide access to curbside delivery or home delivery in in areas that are possible to handle that we have posted a link on our website with um I want to say a little over 100 stores that are providing either designated hours or curbside delivery or home delivery and those stores are listed with their address phone number and what those store hours are or if they're providing another service I thought in the email that I got I don't know if it was from you or not but that there was some reference that there there may be something similar coming up on purchase limits on quantity of certain goods was that something that you said or somebody else that said it um I anticipate that that was somebody else that said that um I will also share with the committee that I was part of the press conference with the governor and congressman welch urging people to uh rethink their purchasing habits I urged the public to revert back to how they were purchasing prior to the pandemic setting in um one fun note for the committee as I've received my first piece of hate mail because of that um but now you'll have more empathy for us yes yes um but uh we have not issued a press release urging the public to stop hoarding but I have because of that press conference I've been uh in touch with several media outlets radio uh and print as well as tv um I've done more interviews and I can count this past week on courting as well as the supply chain um I'm not sure if a press release would would get the public to to stop hoarding um so my my my question is like it's getting kind of circular here um my understanding that if a store owner voluntarily wanted to say to a customer I'm only going to sell you two 12 packs of paper towels that would be within their right to do that it's there yes that is yeah they could do what they want right correct but it is not within so the direction that I would the direction that I was hoping because I I know that other states have had executive orders and we've actually one of the centers did some research on legal steps people have taken in crises like this in terms of product distribution I don't want to go there it seems kind of crazy I just want to do it voluntarily so I was thinking that either our committee or the senate could pass a resolution encouraging four owners to to impose limits and then they could point the finger at us and say you know the senate has spoken and told us to do this so the extent they're on the fence and they don't want to do it they'd have a little bit more um behind and say the legislature suggested we do this that's something that if for instance simple as all things if we were to write a letter to you right form of a a resolution or something and say could you distribute this on on our behalf to your members is that something that would be a problem I don't foresee it being a problem I don't know if it would make an impact again retailers across the state are already imposing certain limits you know many of the small stores especially are doing the personal shopping and doing curbside deliveries so that's cut back on the hoarding I think it's an effort of trying to relieve some of the anxieties in the public and without sounding like I'm asking you guys to do anything it might be more beneficial for everyone in the general assembly to send out a note to their I'm assuming many of you have distribution lists that you communicate with and they would rather hear from you guys than the retail and grocers association or from their retailer that they can't access the products that they want um but maybe just some assurance from from their elected officials would would be more impactful than than a retailer wagging a finger and saying you can't have two gallons of milk or um you know I'm I'm more than happy to partner with the legislature if you feel that I can put something together to send out to constituents but I just feel like it would be it's the public the public is is anxious and they're doing everything they can to prepare for uncertain times and retailers can only put so many limits on so many products okay okay well this issue is going to be with us for a while I don't feel like we have to make a decision right now but I uh we'll talk about it as a committee and we'll figure out a way to go and I appreciate how busy you must be it's crazy for all of us so thanks for taking the time to call in does anybody else have any questions for Erin no but thank you Erin I really appreciate and I think it isn't coming on us to to to remind our constituents to please be thoughtful about their purchases and can I just ask Erin are you seeing any movement in the supply chain are you seeing any improvement yes good question so um in addition to fielding questions part of my efforts have also been to be in consistent well constant contact with members about the supply chain I'm also giving those updates to ACCD and SEOC and the supply chain is starting to to catch up it like I shared earlier we're hoping that the stores the large stores will look fuller in the next one and a half to two weeks it's just it's taken a little longer for the supply chain to to again catch up but but it's starting to it's starting to regulate and and some of us other than the paper products have noticed absolutely no difference in any of the other products I mean there are plenty of vegetables there's plenty of meat there's plenty of everything in at our local max which is where people are shopping I think find more locally which is great yeah so I mean we've had no disruption of product supply except in paper products yeah the the example that I use is um I walk into every store and there's plenty of broccoli our buying habits for broccoli never changed and so there's not a shortage of broccoli so if we all just went back to our normal buying habit we wouldn't have a shortage of products right so maybe there's something catchy I can put together there and send it out to you guys I'm not sure but um if we just if we just went back to her yeah yeah I'm I am more than happy to to partner with with legislature with the legislature in in getting a message out to to consumers um I'm I'm happy to send a message to to my members as well I just I think that it's um it's more beneficial for the consumers to hear from their leaders than from the retailer but again I'm willing to to work with you however I can okay right well I appreciate that and we'll be back in touch okay thank you thank you so much so committee uh one last thing is I sent out an email about meeting from 9 30 to 11 45 on Tuesdays through Fridays fine next week does that work for everybody yep Randy is that okay with you what is that what's he doing he's getting back his audio what's that getting back he's disappearing spirit he just disappeared now he's there he was playing a joke all right so probably the next uh meeting will be at 9 30 on Tuesday okay Randy okay I'm back I was trying to get unmuted here oh okay those times the dates are fine okay great have a good weekend everybody if you can senator as you depart please mention that you are now ending live stream so people are clear the meeting's over I'm sure we have a large audience we're now ending live stream