 Good morning and happy Tuesday. You are with the Vermont House government operations committee. We are returning to our committee session this morning to look at the pay act. We have with us a number of different folks from around state government and, and we will be taking this part of our morning testimony probably right through about 1115 or so. So thank you all for joining us this morning. The first person I'd like to hear from is Steve Howard, who of course is very familiar to us because we see Steve as a VSE a representative in the state house quite frequently but of course, since we haven't been in the state house it's nice to see you in a little box. So Steve, I was hoping that you could sort of frame up the testimony that we're going to hear from various people working in state government this morning. So you have the floor to take it away and I don't know if you've already determined sort of a logical progression of who's going to talk when. But if you have that you can go ahead and and pass the talking stick to whoever comes after you. Okay, perfect. Thank you Madam chair and members of the committee. For the record Steve Howard and the executive director of Vermont State Employees Association and it's also very nice to see everybody in their little boxes across the state as well so hopefully we'll see each other soon in person. I'd like to just start testimony by just talking about the great efforts that state employees have made in this crisis. We really have seen over the last few years and decades the heroism of state employees in really tough times. And it's, it's become clear to us during this covert crisis that it really isn't tough times that for monitors rely on state employees the state employees show up and they do what they have to do. And in this case unfortunately in many cases they're often putting their lives at risk in order to protect and serve the public. I think Governor Scott has been really a strong partner in this effort he recognized that all state employees are essential workers. We agree with him on that. You've got mental health workers AOT workers corrections officers nurses law enforcement officers family service workers and employees at the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, who are managing this crisis going beyond the wall of duty working hours on hours and many in many cases, particularly with our correctional officers, not going home, going to a hotel room at night, and not seeing their family for weeks on end in order to keep the virus from spreading. So I just wanted to start by recognizing that leadership and recognizing that state employees are there in some of the toughest times. I'm pleased that, as you heard the testimony last week that Governor Scott supports this deal and supports this pay act as governors, the governor is known to have said in the past a deal is a deal. And that's, I think why we like doing business with him. You can trust that his word is his, his honor and we are grateful that he supports this pay act. We're very glad that any union supports this pay act. And we, of course, packed able and the judiciary. Annie is supporting the first contract for the Department of the office of states attorneys. And really this committee was instrumental in allowing for these workers to organize so this is really the result of your work as well. And I know that this is really the bargaining process is, as you know, over the last few contracts can be contentious, but in this case, working with the Scott administration with the CEO of the judiciary and with the any union from the office of states attorneys we were able to reach an agreement at the table. And that is something that I know this committee has wanted us to try to achieve it really was the passage of legislation that you pushed through that really made that possible so I want to thank you for that. The governor has been a partner in this process he has treated our members with respect. And we were able we even during this pandemic we were very happy to we've been very pleased with our ability to work collaboratively with the secretary of administration and with this administration on three important agreements that I think have kept the public safe and kept state safe so we want to salute the Scott administration on that front. This plan this this agreement actually is good for the state in the long run the fiscal health of the state. The lump sum. The agreement for the $1400 lump sum that you will see in year one of this contract is estimated by our estimates to save the state about $10 million in future costs. And I think that's an important contribution. One of the things that our members are the proudest of and I think the administration and, and Annie and the judiciary really should also be proud of is that this pay act with its lump sum actually does reach out and help some of the lowest paid state workers in our state, because a percentage of us of a low salary is not much, but in tough times like this. The government really will help our bgs workers who are cleaning our buildings cleaning the state house. It'll help our some of our aut workers that will help the dietary aids at the vets home for instance and many of the folks are in lower paid categories around the state will see a bigger benefit from this. So we're very pleased by that. So those are just my opening remarks and the real stars of the testimony today are the state employees who actually are on the front lines. And we've got Alexis Alexis Tatro, who is a nurse at the Vermont veterans home. I think she's the first. She's the first member of the vsa that we we asked to join us today. Jim Harrison has a question. Thank you madam chair. Steve thank you for joining us this morning it's good to see you as well. I have a couple questions in terms of related to the timing of the contract or the pay act I should say. This morning we got a revenue update from joint fiscal, which suggests or estimates a $377 million loss of revenue for the coming year, and a $220 million revenue for fiscal year 22 so close to $600 million over the next two years. There are obviously a lot of unknowns and I'm wondering if there's been any consideration given to postponing any decisions on the pay act until August where we might have a clearer picture of the revenues and you know whether there's going to be federal help, etc. Before we, you know dig our hole even further. I think the timing of the pay act is really essential that it be included in the so called skinny bill. The contract that the state employees are currently working under will expire on June 30. And so we we the time that it's important that we have a pay act passed to put a successor agreement in place. But couldn't you, couldn't we pass it in August assuming we got more clarity on the revenue picture and make it retroactive to July one. In other words, the, you know, the, the, the paying of the one time increase. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question. No, no, I mean, so let's just assume we come back in August we have more clarity, ie we're going to get federal help or whatever. And we felt more comfortable on our financial situation. Couldn't we pass it then and make it retroactive to July one. I don't know that that's I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think I don't know whether that's possible. But I will say that the agreement contemplates starting on July 1. And I think our position would be that we should maintain the agreement as negotiated with the governor and the judiciary and with with Andy Newton. I understand your position I'm just asking these are unprecedented times. And I don't think anybody last winter when the agreement was negotiated with the administration could have foretold what we would be faced with today. And, and all I know and I'm not on the budget committee but all I know is $600 million over two years is going to mean some significant changes in the way we operate. Unless we get some additional financial help which hopefully we will. We just don't know that today. I'm just, I'm just trying to ask, is there any flexibility from the union standpoint on on when we actually pass something with the pay act. I think that the position we would take is that in times like this when state employees are going beyond the call of duty. And when you've seen, you know, many workers in the private sector receiving hazard pay that this is the time to stand behind the state workforce and I think most Vermonters would agree with that. You know, when you're on your 60th hour on your, you know, fifth or sixth weekend straight trying to process unemployment out for Vermonters or your state trooper and you're on the road or a correctional office service. You know, taking care of folks with COVID-19. This is the real this is the time we believe that the state really should stand behind the contract that was negotiated with its with its employees. No, I, I understand that position Steve, and I just asked you to reflect also that there are a lot of appointed positions that have worked above and beyond as well. And they've been told that there will be no increases for the coming year. I'm talking about commissioners, deputy commissioners and many other exempt personnel. So, we're all in this together, and I totally understand your position I just looking for some flexibility going forward. Thank you Jim. So Steve you said Alexis is first up in your queue. Yes. All right, thank you for joining us Alexis. Good morning, everyone. My name is Alexis Hoyt I'm a registered nurse and I work at the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington Vermont. I've been employed there for two years and I can say honestly that the outbreak of COVID-19 has been the greatest challenge that we have faced within the facility, as well as in my personal nursing career. Frontline nurses have had to adjust their practices daily to meet the infectious control guidelines instituted by the CDC, and all while coping with the same anxieties and fear that everyone else has to deal with during this. In fact, one third of COVID-19 deaths are tied to long term care facilities therefore for us the stakes could not be higher. And I just want to say that our success should not go unacknowledged. Of course, the most optimal goal is to protect our patients all while preserving their quality of life and ensuring the safety of our staff for nurses. This meant many sacrifices, just like any healthcare facility in America VVHS frontline nurses were forced to work in less than optimal conditions. The lack of proper PPE under staffing and grossly overworked. Without the proper protection of PPE. The risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 becomes greater because of the nationwide shortage of protective equipment the nurses were provided with what was considered acceptable by the CDC. At times we were using our face masks on a three day basis and only changed every three days. And then at one point we were talking about using bandanas. Since then, thankfully, this has improved and nurses are now undergoing and 95 fit testing. So that's great. Another challenge that VVHS faced wasn't a meant shortage of staff. Nurses were unfortunately out due to the loss of childcare and because of the risk COVID-19 had on their own personal health issues. Our mandatory overtime was expected of the rest of us daily. Many of us had lost personal hours with our loved ones to make up for the difference in staff numbers. At one point it seemed as though the vicious cycle during this unprecedented time was never going to end. When the news of COVID-19 first broke out in the seriousness of this virus became more evident. I personally became overwhelmed with fear and anxiety. I'm a mother of two young children and I was facing an internal battle. Every day I went into work whether or not I was going to have to choose between the safety of my family over the career that I love to do. My husband and I were making plans A, B and C and considering all of our options just so that I could continue to work on the frontline without risking the health of my family. This meant considering moving away from my family temporarily if this virus hit our facility. It also meant maintaining the same strict disinfecting procedures at home that I would complete at work and it meant staying away from my closest family members for 12 straight weeks. And I can guarantee that this is the same battle many nurses much like myself have had to face during this and will stick with us through the course of our career. In the end I'm just proud to say that with the amazing effort that these nurses including myself have made we have successfully kept this virus out of our facility and continue to push forward into what's considered the new norm. Come July I just think that the lump sum will be greatly appreciated by all of us and it's well deserved by all of the nurses. Thank you so much, Alexis. I, I know that there has been a tremendous amount of sacrifice on the part of many many state employees and not the which are those who are frontline healthcare workers so thank you so much for the work that you've done and also for what you will continue to do because obviously we're not, we're not through this yet. Yeah, so thank you. Marcia Gardner has a question. Not really a question I'd like to echo the thoughts of you madam chair and Alexis thank you for your service and for your sacrifices. Thank you so much. Thanks. Yeah. Great. Bob Hooper. I had joined in on the congratulations I mean the veterans home deals with a lot of challenges every day, one of the few facilities that have actually kept things clean in our state and nationally so their job right up there on top of the file. I just want to point out a difference in what Jim was maybe saying from an administrative perspective to the decisions that Lexis made separating from family as opposed to doing a zoom call from home. That's that's a big difference. That's significant. Thank you. Any other committee members have a question for Alexis. All right, thank you so much. Steve, who's up next. So next is stephen flea bot, who is the chair of our corrections bargaining unit and is correctional officer and the chitin regional correctional facility. Stefan welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Stephen flea bot. I've worked for the department of corrections at the chitin and correctional facility for about nine and a half years now. Recently I've been promoted to the work crew supervisor at the facility. And I've also been active with the SCA for a few years and most recently I've been elevated to the chair of the bargaining unit. I'll talk about both of my roles. First as the worker supervisor, I'm in charge of basically keeping the facility clean. We've stepped up our cleaning procedures a lot since it started, which involves tons and tons and tons of bleach all day long. So I'm in charge of a group of inmates, about 70 inmates that are cleaning different areas in charge of cleaning different things. And then I also have to supervise the officers that are supervising the inmates while they're actually performing all these details. So the officers what I'm seeing from them is they're, we're all reporting to work. We're getting our temperature taken before we even walk through the door. And then throughout the day we have to wear our masks and it's not like we have offices, like a lot of places do or the people that are working from home. So we have our masks on and we get ordered for a lot of overtime because people are getting sick. We'll have empty positions that aren't getting filled for a little while, which has been even tougher. I mean wearing a mask for 16 hours is, it's pretty uncomfortable. The officers are also stuck with inmates that are, for 24 hours a day, they're cooped up in their units. Sometimes they're cooped up right in their cells. And a lot of times boredom is what really creates a lot of issues. I mean, in my career we've noticed that holidays and weekends are when we're having the most issues, the most behavioral issues with the inmates. And this has been just one giant weekend since the start of this. And the officers have stepped up in many, many ways, just keeping the inmates busy, negating any conflict as soon as possible. And I've actually noticed that over this whole process, the behavioral issues have actually dropped significantly, which is do 100% of the officers that are stuck in the units with with the inmates. I just talked to you about the last bargaining session that one that we agreed for the $1400 lump sum. We worked really, really hard and right from the start. Our main mission was to come to an agreement, a fair agreement with the state of Vermont. The last couple bargaining sessions have been tough on us and we've always made it to the to the Labor Board. Sometimes we lose and we really just wanted to make sure that we repaired this relationship that we were having with the state. And I think that our whole bargaining team did a really good job of coming to this agreement. And I think Phil Scott is right to support continuing to give us this $1400, despite what's going on, especially since we've stepped up and we've gone above and beyond. And again, it's supporting more the people that are at the lower pay or pay scales, the deputy commissioners the commissioners when they see this, when if they saw this $1400. That's significantly mean significantly less to them than it does to to the frontline employees in the Department of Corrections, as well as a lot of MU or judiciary employees. Thank you, Stefan. Any questions from committee members. I want to thank you for for for occupying your home office there to be with us this morning I, I hope that I hope that you haven't had to go too far out of your way to get a good signal there to join us this morning. All right, Hal Colston has a question for you, Stefan. Stefan, thank you so much for your service and I'm intrigued by your comment about how behavioral issues have decreased. And I'm wondering, I feel that empathy is a critical piece of meaningful relationships, and how would you rate the empathy level of your staff has that increased also in terms of interacting with the inmates. I would say it would be a little bit mutual. I think officers and inmates have all come to an agreement that we're all in this together and it's uncomfortable for all of us and we're going to get through this. I think that's the most united the off I mean inmates often see us as the enemy. Have the best intentions which makes them uncomfortable. And I think they're working well with us and I think our officers are definitely stepping it up. And they are feeling more empathy for the position that they're in. That's great to hear. Thank you. Rob LeClaire has a question for you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Stefan. Well, I'm glad that we're heading out of this thing. And I recognize the fact that it was very stressful for everybody and it sounds like you did an excellent job. The question I have is, was your group one of those that would get the 20% increase in hazard pay during this time and are you still continuing to get it. The Chittenden facility never got it. There was only two facilities that got it at any time. St. Albans, I believe. I'm not sure if they're still getting it, but they got it because they had the outbreak. And then St. Johnsbury got it because that's where we put all the inmates that were COVID positive. We only had one officer that tested positive and with an officer that tested positive it did not qualify for the 20% very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions from committee members. All right. Thank you, Stefan, for being with us and please keep up the good work. I know that I know that COVID has brought extra challenges for a lot of folks and not the least of which is, is your work environment. So thank you for your, for your great work. Thank you. Steve Howard, who's up next. So next is our newest unit chair, Justin Jiren, who is the chair of our state attorney's unit and also a deputy state's attorney in Chittenden County. Good morning. Thank you, Steve, and thank you to the committee for inviting me. I'm very pleased to be able to talk to you this morning. I'm chief deputy state's attorney for Chittenden County. I've been a prosecutor there for 17 years now. And I'm also the chair of the bargaining committee, as Steve mentioned, our newest, the newest bargaining committee to negotiate contract we're very pleased that we were able to reach an agreement with the state. And I can tell you it's been quite a learning experience for everybody in our committee and we've been told that this is not to be a, not to expect this to be a repeated occurrence. So we look forward to, we're pleased to have had the chance to learn how to do this and we look forward to the next, the next session but very happy to have a tentative agreement. I'd like to talk to you a bit about our, how our office, our department's been handling work during this period. We probably, as you may know, we continue to have members of our department in the office in the courthouse on a pretty much a skeleton crew in Chittenden County we keep. We've had throughout this time period at least three people in the office each day. We're increasing that as of this week to add some people. I'm pleased to say that today is the first day that the court has actually begun to have a Raymond schedule in the courthouse and there's been a lot of work and conversations back and forth about how to do that in a safe manner and effective manner and it's a, it's a work in progress we're still not sure how to continue with other types of hearings going forward. But I can say that, moral wise, our department is is excited to get back into work and get back into doing a more normal type of process and what we've had so far being that being said we've continued to to try to provide the same level of progress that we've always done. Obviously, crime doesn't stop just because we have a health emergency and we continue to work with our local law enforcement and the court and department corrections to try to respond as necessary. And it's been a challenge. I think the hardest part has been on, you know, those folks who have children who have families, we, we continue to support them as much as we can we do weekly meetings, sometimes daily meetings by methods such as this zoom to see how people are doing to make sure that their spirits are up but it's, you know, as a, as a parent who has two grown children, I remember those days when it was tough to be home with kids. And I've, I've really been impressed with the level of professionalism in our, in our staff, when they've had to deal with homeschooling and continuing to do their work from home, at the same time trying to entertain or educate their kids. And I think they've, they've really stepped up to continue to serve Vermont and the way they have. And I'm proud of our staff and I think that everyone else should be as well. I think it was some of the same thoughts as other members who testified that for those workers who do have families and young children and those workers who actually have second jobs and we have a number of them in my office, including deputies that works in my office. You know, for them, a lump sum payment included in the contract will be, I think very valuable, very helpful, and it's, it's a great way to support them and to recognize their, their sacrifices and the Harvard they've been doing. I would just say that it being the newest bargain unit and the ones to get them have this contract for the first time. In addition to the financial piece of the contract, we're really, I think it's really important to recognize the, the other benefits that come with the contract and how much we're excited to have reached it. I think there's a great sense of security, I think in being able to protect rights and but also to create a stable work environment, so that we can continue to provide, you know, top level service, and you can do that when you come together as we have with with the government to mutually reach an agreement that we all think services going forward. So, we're very excited about that. And I can tell you that once again, people I work with there are really looking forward to getting back to work. Thank you. Thank you Justin Jim Harrison has a question. Thank you. Justin Thank you for being with us this morning. When Annie noon and testified before us. She didn't give us any details of the contract but suggested it was similar to what was agreed to with the state employees and and general state government. But she also alluded to the cost for the first year was higher for stadium for the state's attorneys offices. And I assume, you know, maybe because they're coming from a different level to bring it up to part. Do you have any idea what the cost of it is for the unit that you're bargaining for. I'm sorry to say I don't really know what would make it higher than the other units we do have. I think that the excuse me the lump sum and the yearly increase I believe are similar or the same as the rest of the units. There was provision that includes an increase for on call pay and for those of the committee who may not know that deputies in my office, including myself, we, we do serve on call several times a year. And there's been there has been some moderate amount of compensation for that there was an increase in this contract I don't believe it's substantial in terms of the overall contract so I don't think that alone would do it. I'm sorry to say I just don't know what the, how our contract compares the other contracts in terms of different costs. We don't have a lot of overtime for instance so I don't think you know that would, that would have an effect. Okay, thank you. Do you know what the cost for each 21 and 22 is for your section, the total cost of that pay act for that. I do not. Okay. Maybe this is a, maybe a question more for the chair but will we get a breakdown so that we have some kind of fiscal note on what the various costs are. We will. Okay, I'm not sure when we'll make sure that we provide that. All right, thank you. Thank you, Justin. Thank you. Any questions for Justin before we move to our next witness. All right, nobody's diving for the buttons so Steve, who's up next. Next is the bargaining unit chair of our largest bargaining unit. Bob Stone, who is a deputy fire marshal in the Department of Public Safety and chairs are non management. Great. Welcome Bob. Good morning. I've been a fire marshal for eight employees since 2006. And like Steve mentioned, I work for the Department of Public Safety as a fire marshal and I guess I'll keep my comments somewhat short because a lot of what I was going to say was said already but I know that I have heard from many people that are continuing to work in this whole pandemic as many Vermonters have, in particular the Department of Labor employees who are working day in and day out, trying their best to get the unemployment benefits to Vermonters and this time in need. Oftentimes, going without any relief whatsoever. The Department of Transportation folks as well. You know, although they may not be no plowing snow this time of year, they are still working the borders and counting cars and having to work, you know, the front lines. And this is also time away from their families. And then the members of the Department of Health, you know, working the labs, trying to keep the testing going, you know, the departments of children and families and like Steve said, you know, I represent the lion share of the state employees and I hear almost on a daily basis on the struggles that they have. And it's, it's kind of touching from the point that there's not much I mean everyone is doing all that they can to ride this storm out and I know it's a, I know it's hard to think about the $1400 but to a lot of the employees that's going to give a lot to them. So I'm asking you to please support that. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. Thank you Bob, I appreciate you joining us this morning that's quite a library you're sitting in. I'm very impressed. Committee members any questions. All right. Great. Back to Steve. And then included in this pay act is also the agreement with the judiciary. And we have with us, Margaret Crowley, who works in the family court in the Costello courthouse. She's also the chair of our judiciary bargaining unit. Margaret, thank you for being with us. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Margaret Crowley. I'm a family court case manager and I have worked for the judiciary for more than 17 years. And the chairperson of the judiciary bargaining unit and the chairperson of the VSA legislative committee. Judiciary staff in the courthouses are essential workers during the COVID-19 crisis. And we are required to report to work on site at the courthouses because our work cannot be performed remotely. Unlike the court administrator and other administrators at the Supreme Court who are able to perform their functions from home, much like many other people who can do computer work or online work. And even though Vermont is opening up and the judiciary is called back full staff this week to report to all work sites, you know, the COVID-19 crisis is not over. COVID-19 is here with us in the community and it will be here in our courthouses as the public comes in more and more. And it will be with us until there's a vaccine or a cure. So this will be an ongoing, very stressful situation for everyone. The vast majority of judiciary bargaining unit staff are docket clerks and court officers and they are amongst the lowest paid in state government. Many of my coworkers have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis in much the same way as Vermonters and private sector jobs. Because of their low pay scale, many work second and in some cases third jobs that are no longer available to them because of COVID-19. They've had to turn to food banks and food drop off sites to help close the budget gap created by the loss of their second jobs or their spouse's jobs. And working 40 hours a week, of course, prevents them from receiving any unemployment benefits from these lost jobs. The majority of the bargaining unit in the judiciary are women and many are parents and single parents with children who are out of school. And therefore they are also struggling to figure out how to pay for daycare and to find adequate daycare now that the courts are reopening to full staff. The $1,400 lump sum agreed to by both parties during the bargaining session would provide much needed financial assistance to the frontline court staff workers. It would be very helpful for my coworkers struggling right now to make ends meet during this crisis. So I understand many of the difficulties financially throughout this crisis, but we are talking about people who are struggling on a day-to-day basis, risking loss of home, not being able to pay mortgages and rent, living off of credit cards. So it's really impacting them in such a big way. And I know that it seems like everything is great when someone has a 40-hour job, but when the pay scale is so low that they have to have second and third jobs or seek assistance, then this $1,400 is just going to barely cover maybe a daycare week or daycare two weeks or maybe some groceries for the month. So we really do desperately need to have this type of assistance for our judiciary staff. Thank you, Margaret. I appreciate you playing out the story there in a little bit more detail. It really helps us to understand who it is that we're talking about. Committee members, any questions for Margaret? All right, nobody is diving for their hand raised buttons. So we are good. Thank you so much, Margaret, for being with us. Thank you. Steve, back to you. Got anyone else? So I do, I don't see her on the screen, but I think she's trying to get to a computer. So I don't know if we're going to have time to reach her, but we're the only person left is Lieutenant Barbara Kessler from the Vermont State Police. I don't know if she's on yet or not, but I don't see her, but we will. We can give it a moment here and see if Andrea is communicating with her if she's having any trouble. I think she was planning to join at 1045 anyway, so I'm assuming that she will be along momentarily. Madam chair, I will watch for her in the waiting room and alert you when she comes in. Okay, I appreciate it. Let's let's take a five minute stretch break. Everybody grab a drink of water. Do a jumping jack. Turn your camera off first. And we'll be back in five minutes. So at 1050. See you in a few. All right, Lieutenant Kessler. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. We've got some committee members who just we're taking a little stretch break. So I think we will go ahead and try to call them back. And maybe we can work on the tech challenges because it appears that we're having trouble that you're having trouble hearing us. I see that you are muted. So let's take care of that. First of all, that's interesting. I'm trying to unmute. Okay, now I can see you. Can you hear us, Lieutenant Kessler? No, maybe not. Can you hear us? We are ready to go with you and I'm trying to unmute you, although you, okay, now perhaps you've unmuted yourself. Can you hear us now? Why don't we have you try to jump off and jump back on the call again? How about now? Okay, so I can see you reacting to us, but I can't hear you yet. You are unmuted on my end. Well, hopefully we can get your speakers working and get you on with us momentarily. Try this in a different way. I happened to be in Montpelier yesterday and had a conversation out on the front steps of the state house with the chief of police and we were talking a little bit about how much we have all learned and adapted to this remote meeting environment because I certainly remember the first couple of meetings that we had. We were having tech challenges like this, you know, kind of across the board. And now we've, we have managed to figure out how to make them fewer and farther between. So, so good work and we'll just be patient here for a moment and see if we can get Lieutenant Kessler back in where we can hear her. So, Steve Howard, was there anybody else on your list that we could jump to? I'm sorry, that was the last number we had on our list. She's your cleanup hitter, huh? Okay, well, we will, we will just give it another moment here and trying to think if I have any other announcements. We have an all house caucus this afternoon, I believe it starts at 3.30, is that right? The house floor tomorrow morning is at 11 and Friday house floor will be at 10. So that's kind of the schedule for floor sessions for the rest of the week and of course on Thursday we will have a committee meeting again at 10.30 in the morning. So while we're waiting, John Gannon, maybe you could run through with us a little bit on what you learned about our bill that's coming back from the Senate, because at some point before floor tomorrow we will need to make a, we'll need to make a determination on the Senate proposal of amendment. Okay, sure. Thank you. So the bill is 2948. So the Senate has put forward a strike all amendment. And this is a bill that deals with quasi judicial proceedings, specifically board of civil authority. And so while it is a strike all amendment, really the significant change that they made is to add, to add, is to add hearing officers who hear appeals from the boards of civil authority on property evaluations to the bill and provides the same language for them that they don't have to physically inspect any property that is subject to an appeal. They can, as with the BCA, the appellant request it, property can be inspected electronically. And if the appellant doesn't facilitate that inspection, then the appeal shall be withdrawn. So that's the significant change. The only other change to the bill in the Senate version is they moved to the definition of electronic means to a separate subsection, all by itself so that it applies to both the hearing officer section as well as the BCA section on inspections. They haven't changed that definition, they just moved it. So those are really the only changes, they are the only changes to the bill, other than a renumbering of subsections. So I mean hearing officers are in the next line, the statute 32 BSA 4467 says that they may inspect a property on request. So it's basically the same thing as the BCA. Great. Thank you, John. So committee members just take a peek at that in an off moment and we will come back to that before we go on to the floor tomorrow so that we can be ready to report the committee's thoughts on the Senate work on 948. Rob LeClaire. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for Steve Howard. Okay, so let's hold on just a moment. I will get right back to you. We have someone who's joined by telephone with the last digits 547. Can you identify yourself? I think I'm muted. Oh, I hear you now. Yes. Okay, good. Lieutenant Kessler. Yes, Lieutenant Barbara Kessler with the Vermont State Police. Okay, we're going to, we're going to get you renamed and I'm going to jump back to Representative LeClaire who has a question and then we'll come right to you for your testimony. So thank you so much for, for jumping around and figuring out how to get yourself into our meeting today. I appreciate it. Sorry about that. No worries. All right, Rob LeClaire. Thank you, Madam Chair. Steve, I've got it written someplace but I'm looking for what, so what is the total percent increase for year one with a one time payment, and then the pay and step increases, and then what's the increase year to the total percent increases. Thank you Representative LeClaire. So in year one, the $1400 lump sum is equivalent to, it's about, and my math's not perfect on this, but it's roughly the same as the percentage in year two, which is 2.25%. And that's the COLA. The, the steps, the average of the steps is not all state employees step in the same year. The average of the steps is about 1.9%. So if I'm a state employee that's going to get a step increase, I would add the 2.5 and the 1.9. In year two, you would add the, the two percentages in year one, the $1400 is not baked is, is not, you're not going to become part of your base salary. So that the salary that increases your two is the same as the salary you receive now that you're receiving now. In year one, what does that, what does that increase represent though if you combine the two percentage wise? My math's not perfect, but it's, it's roughly the 2.25% and the 1.9%. But it's not again the 1.9% is the average it's not, it's not guaranteed to every, every employee if they're not stepping in that year. So we're talking roughly about a 4.4% increase. So that's 2.5 and 1.9. 2.25. Oh, I'm sorry. 2.25. Okay. Sorry. I had 2.5. Thank you. All right. Lieutenant Barbara Kessler. Thank you so much for joining us. Take it away. All right. Well, my name is Barbara Kessler. I'm a Lieutenant with the Vermont State Police work here for going on 23 years now, getting close to retirement, which is kind of a good thing. I was asked to testify today about how COVID has influenced my workload, my job, things like that, my personal life. So, due to COVID and the things, the risks that I'm exposed to my daughter actually who is 17 is now living with her father and doesn't come over to the house because I'm clearly more at risk to infect someone than my ex-husband. So, you know, don't get to see her very often. My boyfriend lives in Maine and because of the travel restrictions, I haven't been able to see him. He isn't able to come over here because he is a trooper over there as well and they have the same travel restrictions that we do. So we would have to quarantine for two weeks if we left the state and we'd have to go off payroll or use annual leave. The troopers' job, we're a very tight-knit office. We're a tight-knit family of troopers and we rely heavily on each other for emotional support and things like that. And we really, all of our professional ties have become technological instead of personal now. Anytime we have to meet with someone, it's by Zoom meeting or telephone. We're really not told to congregate at the barracks, which is one of the things that kind of strengthens our bond as a unit. Really the only time the troopers are allowed to see each other is when they're responding to a call. And of course, every call you go to, if there's an impending arrest, the arrestee says, I'm COVID positive, ha ha ha. And you don't have the ability to socially distance from someone that you're taking into custody. So that can be really emotionally trying for the troopers. We had one that was shortly after everything went into severe lockdown. There was a domestic and the three night shift troopers had to arrest the male party. The female party said that she had just gone to get tested for COVID and she was symptomatic. And she didn't want to come to the barracks to give a statement or anything like that. But they did have to meet with her. And of course her boyfriend was living boyfriend. So he's like, yeah, I probably got it. You know, I've been coughing, blah, blah, blah. But they had to stay in a closed room with him for processing. They use PPE obviously, but still, you know, it's really traumatic. And then they call me at the end. It's like 6am in the morning on a Saturday. They said, what are we supposed to do now? Because now we've essentially possibly been exposed and we don't know if we should go home. What do we do? And one of them has an infant baby at the house and he was like, you know, do I just go home and stay in the bottom floor of my house until we know if this guy tests positive or not. So it's just, it's brought a lot of different things to light. And we've really had to modify the way we do business. It's not ideal. It's been pretty hard. But you know, we're managing and, you know, we continue to do the job and we continue. We will continue to do the job, even in light of all the protests and the anti law enforcement stuff too. I don't know what else he would like me to say. Well, let's let's ask the committee members if they have any questions for you. We'll wait and wait a moment, see if anybody pops their hand up. All right, I'm not seeing anybody diving into to raise their hand so it sounds like you, your presentation has answered all folks questions so I very much appreciate you being here. Let's see representative murwiki has a question. Go ahead, Mike. I don't have a question but I just want to recognize the work that's the amazingly hard work that's being done by the VSP by this trooper by all the state employees that we've heard today and I think we all thank you for that and hope you feel that you're getting some a great level of appreciation from us and from the public so thank you very much. You're welcome and thank you for that. We do feel the support. And, you know, it's not over yet so as as much as we as much as we are feeling grateful that our state has has flattened the curve and that we are seeing a decrease in the number of cases. And that with summertime and travel experiences and COVID still bouncing around in other parts of the country in the world that that we're not over this yet so I very much appreciate the adaptations that you all are taking on as part of your duties in protecting the public and I know that it's not easy so thank you again for for the sacrifices that you're making on our behalf in order to make sure that Vermont is safe. So thank you also for jumping through some hoops to get yourself here with us this morning I know that sometimes technology doesn't work. Yeah, or I'm just technologically challenged. It's all, it's all a new set of skills that we are learning here together so I appreciate you being with us today. And now committee I think if we have heard from all the folks that that Steve Howard has in his mind to set before us today I would love to switch gears and and have Betsy and give us. I don't think we have time at this moment Betsy and to do a full walkthrough but if you would orient us to where we can find the draft and and we'll give a little assigned reading to committee members to to do their own. Look through of the bill language before we come back to this on Thursday so go ahead and tell us where we can find the language. Hello everybody Betsy and Rask Legislative Council. Thanks Madam Chair and thank you to Andrea for posting this draft. If you go to today's House of Ops webpage under today's date. My name there are several documents posted for today but the pay act draft for your review is listed under DR 20-0995 draft 1.3 with today's date. That is the draft as it stands now I put I put this draft together at the direction of the chair but this is the first time that everybody is able to take a look at the draft so I welcome feedback on it. Once you do pull up the draft, you'll see it structured as a House of Ops committee bill. On the first page of the bill, it provides just a high level summary of what the bill proposes to do. And that is to one, fully fund the collective bargaining agreements applicable to state employees in the executive and judicial branches, and I'm talking to the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs collective bargaining agreement in the executive branch section, because they would fit under executive branch or I would consider them executive branch. So, authorize compensation increases for exempt employees in the executive branch. Adjust compensation for statutory state and county officers, and then provide the appropriations to fund the compensation increases in the executive judicial and legislative branches. As you're going through the bill it's structured similar to how pay acts are normally structured. But if you do have the draft up in front of you. It will probably help committee members to take a look at section one section one is your just a reminder as to what the collective bargaining agreements do provide. And in section one, that it is providing that this pay act would fully fund the collective bargaining agreements between the state and the VSE a for classified employees in the executive and judicial branches in fiscal years 21 and 22. And just to summarize there at the top of page two, there is an overview of what those CBAs provide in the CBA collective bargaining agreement. As I understand all the collective bargaining agreements that are up for your consideration for funding provide the same increases. So if you're looking at that draft you can see on page two starting on line three that in fiscal year 21. It's an average 1.9% step increase and that $1400 one time payment to individuals who are employed with the state as of July one 2020. In fiscal year 22. It's an average 1.9% step increase and 2.25% across the board increase, which is also known as the cola cola and across the board increase are the same thing. And for FY 22. That's a total 4.15% increase. And just note here that the collective bargaining agreements as I understand from getting some feedback from the Department of Human Resources and thank you to them that they're also the non salary components of the pay act. The pay act would need to also cover in the appropriations amounts. And those non salary pay act provisions include a tuition reimbursement program, childcare and elder care. So another component, which is that the collective bargaining agreements also provide for the governor to provide a twin state family medical leave plan. And there's language in the collective bargaining agreements that provide that if that family medical leave plan is not implemented or is implemented and then discontinued that employees would also get a 0.25% of the board increase. So we heard from DHR at your last committee meeting on the pay act that due to COVID that pay plan family medical leave plan had to be suspended due to COVID and I believe the administration plans to implement it in fiscal year 22. But as I understand the feedback from DHR there was not implement implementation due date. So as I understand from DHR and finance and management that even though the plan has not been implemented yet and won't be there in time for fiscal year 21. But that does not mean that there needs to be an additional 0.25% across the board increase and FY 21. Just so you have that information. So as a summary of the collective bargaining agreements and then what you'll see the bill does through most of the remaining sections is provide increases to exempts and statutory officers and the executive and judicial branches. Only for fiscal year 22. So, as I believe you heard testimony last time. The administration proposes to not provide to exempts or to statutory officers, such as our statewide officers or any of the department heads and agency secretaries and compensation increase in fiscal year 21. So you'll see this pay act is structured to not provide to exempts and statutory officers in the executive and judicial branches any increase in fiscal year 21. So this pay act is drafted so that those exempts and statutory officers in the executive and judicial branches would get their compensation increase in fiscal year 22. Consistent with the collective bargaining agreements applicable for fiscal year 22, which is that average of 4.15% increase. Go through sections 23. All the way you'll see start to see statutory salaries get amended. All the way through the state's attorneys the actual statutory elected states attorneys and sheriffs ending in section 10. So those exempts and statutory officers would obtain a compensation increase in fiscal year 22 consistent with the increases in the fiscal year 22 collective bargaining agreement. Then, on page 14, in sections 11 and 12, I'll point out for you that there is a proposed change to legislators statutory salaries. Right now, legislators statutory salaries, the way that the language in the statute is set up. It provides that annually legislators statutory salaries, get adjusted annually consistent with the cost of living adjustment negotiated for state employees under the most recent collective bargaining agreement. As I mentioned, when we had our first introduction to pay act legislators consistently are put on a different level than all of the other constitutional officers who under normal circumstances, normally get the same compensation increases that are provided to classified employees under the collective bargaining agreement. And so that's an average of the step increase and the cola or across the board increase. But that's not what legislators get. According to your legislative salary, you are only entitled to one of those, the cola, aka they across the board increase, not the step equivalent. And so every year when other constitutional officers get those increases legislators do not this would change that effective July one 21 so at the beginning of the fiscal year 22. This statutory change would put legislators on par with the other constitutional officers so that if the other constitutional officers get both the step equivalent and a cola, then legislators would also. In this case, because of the way that the collective bargaining agreement is set up legislators would not get any increase until that fiscal year 22, because that lump sum payment is just a lump sum payment in fiscal year 21. That's not a step, not a cola. So that takes you through sections 11 and 12. And then finally, you get to section 13, which provides the pay act appropriations. You'll see all the appropriations are put in yellow highlighting because we don't have the numbers yet for how much all of the increases cost at this point. You'll see this is the standard language for how to fund each of the branches increases. And where those funds are derived the sources from which they're derived so it starts with the executive branch. Then it goes into the judicial branch. And then it goes into the legislative branch finally. Those amounts will need to be determined. Including the question of any legislative increases for the question of whether there will be any increases for legislative employees because no legislative employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. So it's a that's a policy decision for you to make in that regard. But for the effective date section finally in section 14. The whole pay act agreement would take effect on July one 2020 that's the beginning of the 21 fiscal year, except for sections 11 and 12 regarding the legislator paste statutes would take effect on January one 21. So those statutes the way those are set up is just to show what your pay would actually be without any increases starting on January 121, but with that statutory language saying starting in July, you would get the same increases provided other constitutional officers. That's a very high level overview madam chair and I'm happy to go into more details when it's good for the committee, and I'm happy to get feedback from, for example, Department of Finance and Management is always great at double checking. Double checking my numbers. In this case, I just applied that 4.15% increase in fiscal year 22 to all of the statutory salary so I would love to have somebody double check to make sure that those are correctly implemented there. And also I highlighted a couple other little places that I just want to just run by the executive branch for example on page three. I'll just put a note out there to DHR and Department of Finance and Management. Whether that section four language is technically accurate. I know we're at work short on time so I can follow up with them offline. I would appreciate that we should present those questions and make sure that we make time for them on Thursday I've got a couple of committee members with their hands up so let's go first to Jim and then john. Thank you Betsy and just a couple of questions I think you answered. So, as this draft bill is put together. There are no increases for exempt positions. And does that include elected positions. And I'm not talking legislative. There are no increases for exempts or elected officials and fiscal year 21, but there would be increases in fiscal year 22. Okay. So, and there's so the elected would then also include legislators because we're tied to the COLA which is not in the bill for the first year. Correct. Legislators would not get a compensation increase in this fiscal year 21, you would see an increase in fiscal year 22. So going forward to next winter, if the revenue forecast are still down. Can we could we elect to go back in and say elected officials, or exempt officials do not get an increase for year to even though it's included here. I think you could do that you might want to just to help make it clear now better a way to approach that perhaps would be to have a maybe a future effective date on the language for example, in section three. I haven't thought about that but statutory language is always subject to amendment. But it might might be helpful if you think that will come that the ledge might want to reconsider. It might be helpful to help make that clear or in this bill or somehow provide that legislative intent. Okay, and then lastly, we appropriate through this bill X amount of millions of dollars. If the revenues are not increased. And we have a budget shortfall. What does that mean does that mean departments have to if the appropriations committee doesn't fund it by department. Does that just mean they have to find savings by laying laying off for example people with an individual departments. And this pay act does not appropriate sufficient funds to cover FY 22. No, let's just say we, we appropriate 25 million or 30 million whatever the number is for each of the years, fiscal years, but the appropriations committee does not separately appropriated by department. Let's just say 15 million is to the agency of human services. How would they account for the increases as account for called for by the pay act would they just have to cut it within their budget reduce elsewhere. So this might be a better question for someone from JFO or Department of Finance and Management but I will just note in section 13 on page 17 and the appropriations section the general language that's provided in a pay act is that X amount of money is appropriated from the general fund to the Secretary of Administration for distribution to departments to fund the fiscal year collective bargaining agreements and requirements of this act, meaning all of the increases that are provided. So that language is there directing that distribution. And that would be the legislative intent to do that. I wouldn't want to say with certainty how that would be handled probably would be good to get some additional testimony on that question. Okay, thank you. I'm getting. Thank you. So, I just want to confirm two things one thing with Steve Howard and then one with best for Stiggy. Steve with respect to the twin state family medical plan are you in agreement with the administration that the point 25% across the board increase does not apply. I don't think we're in disagreement but we're not in agreement. By the language of the contract that to the quarter of a percent needs to be included in the pay act, regardless of when the administration is able to implement that that plan because if the administration fails to implement the plan. Then they are obligated to this again was their proposal. They are obligated to provide the across the board increase. So I think it does have to be in the pay act. Even if even if they aren't able to do it in year one. Okay, thank you. Beth, my question to you is I was looking over your testimony. When we last met about the pay act, and I just wanted to confirm that it was your testimony that that exempts would only not get a pay increase in FY 21. Because the way I read your testimony, you didn't specify a fiscal year. So, I'm just wondering if you could confirm with what what you were proposing. Hi. Good morning. Yes. Good morning. Hi, this is Beth fast to G commissioner of human resources and yes, the intention is that exempt employees would not get an increase in fiscal year 21 but we do still have money included or. Pay act that's included for fiscal year 22. fiscal year 22 increases. In the past. I think that so generally what happens is secretary young, once the pay act is approved secretary young looks at the pay act amount amount authorized and then makes a decision as to what the level of increases might be for exempts. That's the maximum that secretary young could approve but it's not necessarily what exempts would get or whatever exempt would, would get under, you know, within the governor's right so there's the flexibility there is it's up to amount it's not a foregone conclusion that that would be given it would on again in fiscal year 22 it would be the secretary of administration would have the flexibility to forego those increases or make them a lower percentage if desired. But the money is included for those in fiscal year 22. So just to follow up on that. I think the last time we were in a financial crisis exempts took a pay cut, is that correct. I am going to ask. I think that's correct. I have some folks on the call that will recall which years those were perhaps either Harold Schwartz or john barard and I think they recall when that was happening but yes exempts didn't take a pay cut. I don't know if that was laid out in pay act or if that was based on the decision of the secretary of administration. I don't know if any of those guys would call that Harold or john are you able to remind us of the history of exempt pay cuts during the recession in 2009. Yeah. Yes, this is job or director of labor relations department human resources. And actually, the PSA and the state negotiated pay decreases and a step freeze as part of collective bargaining agreements to address the recession and the exempts took the what is what would have been the equivalent of those. Pay decreases and step freezes. Thank you. Great. Committee we need to shift gears at this point so I'm going to just say thank you to the crew of folks who've been with us this morning to talk about the pay act and the collective bargaining agreement and I appreciate you all taking some time out of your normal work day to jump on this zoom meeting with us and we will be in touch if we need you back for a future committee. So thank you so much for being with us.