 Welcome back. We're going to meet for a minute here. Well, that's a minute for our own. It takes we have Sir Robinson and Heather Lynn who testified last week on age 329 and the issue I can't hear. Good morning. The issue I can't hear was about public accommodations and the intersection between that those in schools and how we should try to allow. In this case, the student population have more access to some recourse if they are being harassed or bullied or discriminated against their studies. And so we kind of hit a wall between title 16 and the public accommodations law. We asked Heather and Sarah to meet over the last seven days and they have. So I will turn the microphone over to whomever would like to start. Sarah. I'm happy to start. Good morning. For the record, Sarah Robinson, I'm a deputy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. And we'd like to thank the committee for taking up age 329 again today and just want to state as a reminder that as a matter of policy, the network remains strongly supportive of the overall purpose of the bill, including the proposed changes to the Fair Employment Practices Act and the Fair Housing Act as well as the changes to public accommodations. And as you noted, after last week's testimony, the network met with Heather as a representative of Vermont School Board Association, Vermont Superintendents Association, the Vermont Principles Association and vis-a-vis to discuss a possible path forward. And these conversations were very helpful in that they really clarified for us areas of alignment and further clarified our areas of disagreement. So I would like to share with the committee a suggested compromise and a path forward. And I just want to clarify that I'm bringing this forward on behalf of the Vermont network, the National Association of Social Workers, Vermont Chapter, Vermont Legal Aid, and the Human Rights Commission. And was this shared with us under Heather's name? Is that what's on our website? No, we have. Heather did propose some language and I would say that we have conceptual agreement, but we have not reviewed that language. The organizations that I am representing, we have not reviewed that language. I'm going to speak to that just briefly. I just had a chance to look at it this morning. So I would say we have conceptual agreement, but we do not have agreement on language. Okay. And so after you explain this next chunk, just if you could, if you have that in a way that you could share it with Ron so that we could just have it here on record, that would be great. Do you want to be a co-host? Do you want to show it to us on print or do you want to just do it verbally? Why don't I start with verbal and then I can, I'd be happy to share my screen as well the committee has. So really this compromise language comes with the intention of moving the legislation forward and honoring the good work of this committee on the bill. So the proposal is to keep the elements of the bill that apply to fair housing and employment and address the application of the definition of harass to other sites of public accommodation. So places open and providing services to the public, such as businesses, schools, government buildings, et cetera, for another time. So to be clear, we aim to remove the controversial language applying the definition of harass to places of public accommodation and instead clarify that this definition applies only to the fair housing elements of the chapter. In addition, we would like to retain the amendment that you have discussed, which increases the statute of limitations period for claims to be brought under either the Unlawful Employment Practices Act or the Public Accommodations Act to six years. So as I said, I think that we have conceptual agreement and I will also let Heather speak to that. But I just want to note that the changes are a result of significant compromise by advocates that have been working on the bill this session, but we still believe it represents an important gain and an immense amount of work in the realms of fair housing and employment. And if the committee does decide to pursue these changes, it will absolutely require some careful drafting to ensure that an amendment includes language that permits the Fair Housing Act to move forward with the Fair Employment Practices Act without any direct or indirect impact on the Public Accommodations Act. And we're happy to partner to achieve that aim. So as I mentioned, I've only had a chance to just briefly see Heather's amendment this morning. And again, although I believe we're in conceptual agreement, I think we may need some additional time to come to consensus on language, which we have not had a chance to do yet. And just in an initial review, I think we would probably propose amending just the Fair Housing Act without necessarily touching the old definitions of the section. But I'm happy to share with you our kind of conceptual agreement. And I will do that right now. And I will also send this to Ron. Yep, let me just share my screen. Hold on. Can you see that? Yes. Great. Yep. So again, this is just kind of laying out who we are bringing this forward on behalf of. And these are the two conceptual elements of the agreement. So removing the language, changing the definition of harassment as applicable to public accommodations. Clarify that the changes in Title IX apply narrowly to housing only, not to other sites of public accommodation. And to retain the proposed amendment to expand the statute of limitations for claims brought under either the Unlawful Employment Practices Act or the Public Accommodations Act to six years. So I don't have specific language to share with you today, but I'm happy to either work with a legislative council or with Heather on something that achieves these aims. Yeah, that's fine. We're not finishing this today. So we'll figure that out. I want to hear from Heather in a minute. Just in terms of this language though. I'm sorry. Just the concepts that we have removed to Title XVI and now this public accommodation stuff. Is it in the interest of the proponents of age 329 to reintroduce the concepts that we're doing and expect that this would get handled by the Education Committee? Is that have you thought that far down the road? Yep. Well, I will just say that I believe there remains commitment to not just as it applies to schools, but as it applies to all sites of public accommodation. And just as a reminder, that's really any place that the public is accessing for services. It can be government buildings. It can be schools, prisons, hospitals, all sites of public accommodation. I think that at some point in the future, we do believe that the standard and the definition of harassment ought to be modified as it relates to the Public Accommodations Act. I believe that given the concerns, we are willing to consider removing that at this time and to come up with a plan for future conversations to happen to understand fully the integration between changes in Title IX and changes in Title XVI and come back to the legislature in a future year with some considerations related to that. Great. Thank you. Okay, to move to Heather. Thank you, Sarah. I appreciate it very much. Heather, welcome back. Good morning. And again, for the record, Heather Lynn, and I am an attorney working in Burlington, but today I'm here on behalf of the organizations commonly called the V's, VSBA and Bisbit, VPA and Vermont School Board's Association. I don't have much to add. I agree with what was described by Ms. Robinson about our conversation on Monday. It was very constructive from our perspective, very useful. And the language that we proposed was designed to at least clarify what our position is so that you would understand it. And we're happy to continue to engage either with counsel for the committee and or Sarah Robinson going forward on how to make this amendment that we do have agreement on and principle read. So I don't have much more to add on any of that. So the proposed language, I haven't looked at it yet either, but the proposed language is at least your take on what Sarah put into prose. This is I think prose, sorry, into English. And then you have taken that and turned it into, this is something we can share with our attorney as work product. And if we're in agreement that the goals is outlined both in the proposed language and in what Sarah Robinson provided, that our attorney can try to fashion something to bring back to us and to you to see if it coalesced correctly. Absolutely. Yep. And I guess I would only just echo that the goal of this is to preserve and recognize that at least with respect to schools, there has been an evolution over the last 20 years of how we are regulating, defining and responding to harassing conduct in a way that I don't think has happened in the general employment context or other places of public accommodation. And so it makes sense for that work to be acknowledged and recognized with this carve out. It doesn't mean that further work perhaps isn't necessary. That is something that the V's would be happy to engage on, but with a with an understanding of what exists currently and to build on that rather than perhaps be at cross purposes. So those those are the additional comments I would add. Sure. No, I think it's representative Kolecki. Well, if I look here, I'm looking at you. If I look here, I'm not looking at you. So I extremely disappointed with this. And Heather, I was struck when you spoke to us last time that you said about the schools already doing all of this that you're asking for. So if the school is ahead of the rest of the field, I don't understand why the schools are opposed to this. And you keep saying the schools are doing this. So then what's the problem? I think what I'm trying to communicate and forgive me if I haven't been clear is which is totally possible. What I'm trying to say when I say schools are already doing this, what I am saying is that much of the elements that are outlined in the proposed amendments to the Unlawful Practices Act are getting at aspects of how we already prohibit behaviors in schools. In Title 16, the definition of harassment is far broader than the definition that had been employed, or core term, used in employment context up until your proposed change. So Vermont schools were already addressing those, but the language and the terms are indeed different. And additionally, what we talk about when we look at the Public Accommodations Act and the terminology used there and the standards used there is standards that are being applied to the operation of the institution at large with respect to how it enforces the expectations that are applied and enforced against students. So there are two sets of rules and they have evolved over 20 years with jurisprudence and to change one without consideration of the interaction of how that affects the other would create confusion and chaos which would as a result in fact be detrimental to the objectives of the proponents of this bill in my view. So that's what I was trying to explain and that is the legal problem and concern for us. First of all, I mean, this is your area of expertise. So thank you. This is not mine at all, but I would have hoped you would have brought that to the table to compromise and change other parts of the bill to make it more alignment versus carving out schools. That's what I'm disappointed in. We cannot have an inclusive playing field, the definition of harassment discrimination in our state. And I'm hearing from you that actually the schools could inform it profoundly and make this a better bill, but instead it's carved out. That's my disappointment. So I guess the only additional comment that I could add to that is that we take a different view of those behaviors given the context and the age of the students who are engaging in it. We're talking about less structured, varying environments, environments that are designed to allow students to test opinions, engage around opinions, engage in free expression. In those settings, the considerations are different than the traditional employment settings that, again, I think has been some, not all, of the focus of this bill. And so the standards have evolved with an appreciation of that complexity and are titrated for that one. And number two, I don't know that the harm that this bill is designed to redress, in fact, exists given the fact that we have different standards already in place, which were far more aggressive. The most obvious of which is our prohibitions against student behaviors in schools as a consequence of Title 16 definitions already reach conduct that happens out of school. You can engage in bullying, hazing, or harassment, regardless of the location of that behavior. That already was a change adopted by the legislature in Vermont many, many years ago in setting standards for student behaviors. And it's been my impression, I didn't sit in on the meetings before the two that I've been in on and I've looked at some of them online, but it's been my impression that some of what was driving the bill that's being considered is an appreciation for the fact that behaviors that perhaps happen outside of employment settings can still affect an employee's ability to go to work and be in work. So what I mean to say is that some of the things you're trying to cure and fix and redress don't necessarily exist in the Vermont school settings, not all of them, but that's our perspective and our view. And so what we would suggest is if we're going to revisit school behaviors, let's look at that from the ground up, look at what is already there, how it is working, and identify gaps because it is a unique setting with unique considerations that need to be taken into account before choosing your tools of relief. That's our perspective and I am open to the fact that others would see it differently. Chair Stevens, could I share something? Yes, please do. I think that one of the, just to also respond to Representative Kalaki, I think that one of the areas that we were able to clarify in our meeting this week is it's our perspective that schools aren't wholly unique from other sites of public accommodation because there are statutes that govern conduct in medical settings, in the correction system, as well as in schools that are found elsewhere in statute. And I think that one of the areas that we were able to clarify, at least for us, was that we do believe that there ought to be a comprehensive approach to looking at all sites of public accommodations. But given the concern arising from the educational management stakeholders, we felt like that probably deserves a more thorough and slower conversation. And I think that we're very dedicated to having that and to continuing to try to bring that forward in a future year. Representative Trina. Thank you. So, Heather, what you tell us is a concept and a progression over, as you say, over the last 20 years. And I don't argue that. I think that you're correct there. But being on an equity council, local equity council in my community, we're hearing that the behavior persists and it persists in a very systemic way. It just the measures in place that you describe sound great, but they're not particularly being effective in the community from what I see on the ground level. So, and school administrators are relatively helpless at this point, not because they don't have proper guidance, but because they just, it's just a problem that is so difficult to deal with that it's just not happening. And this behavior is persisting in many, many, many of our high schools, including in my community. And it's disturbing. So the notion that it's already taken care of is, in theory, accurate, but in practicality seems to be lacking. I think the difficulty that we're confronted with is on a couple of fronts. I would say, having done this work for 20 years, the environment in which we are now operating in the last three to four years is very, very different than it was 10 years ago. And I'll simply leave it to all of you to supply the reasons for that. When we are, when I say that we're doing the work, I'm not saying that we have a situation where students will not continue to test the boundaries of those expectations that we are no longer in a situation where we have to step up and respond when they fail to meet those expectations. We're going to have to do this work day in and day out, weekend and week out. And every year, we get a new student body. We have turnover. We have students moving into our school districts. We have students growing, changing, evolving, changing their opinions, constantly testing what our expectations are. So we have the standards. We have a process for responding when we're aware that behaviors are falling short of those standards. But I don't think that the mere fact that we continue to have to respond and engage and redress this kind of behavior stands necessarily for the proposition that what we are doing is not working in whole. It may in certain settings, but I don't believe that that is what that stands for. I would also just add that whether or not student behavior at the end of an analysis and an investigation is found to satisfy this definition of harassment and where it does not should not be considered as an instance where the school then chooses to do nothing. What that decision represents is that behavior does not fulfill the standard of behaviors which are going to create illegal obstruction of access to education. There are many other standards in the code of conduct which still will be met and applied and discipline will largely result in those cases. It simply won't be because of a violation of this defined legal term. So there are many other responses that will still be brought to bear and frequently the student who is the target of the behavior won't know directly from the school what those responses are because schools are prohibited from sharing that information because it is confidential educational information by federal law. So I just want to remind the committee that whether or not something is or is not harassment is not the end of the story for a school responding to behavior. Thank you for that. Any further questions for either Heather or Sarah right now? Just a note of appreciation for having worked on this over the last week. I appreciate it pretty much. And this is the kind of you know these are the kind of conversations that don't happen easily whether it's in a pandemic or you know not they're just in this in a scrum of the scrum of the session. But what I'll ask our attorney Damien who's been listening now for the last chunk of this to take the information that's provided and see what he can craft. I mean I think for I think immediately right now the idea of splitting off the public accommodations part I think while it represents a compromise and probably the purest sense of the word it recognizes that everything else that's left of the bill is really important and should pass but also that this section needs the further study. Because the interplay in public accommodation the fact that school I just can appreciate that we need to talk about that element of it more. I'm disappointed also that we'd be taking other public accommodations out of the equation for the time being. But with this moving forward we can get to that conversation. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Representative Murphy than Walsh. I just want a little clarity on what we as committee are looking at and how we're moving this because there's still sections that I raised concerns about from the very beginning that are in 3.1. And so when I see us accepting testimony and given these kind of concessions that we're going to move forward I just want to make sure it's understood that 3.1 may there are areas of it that I have concerns with. We haven't discussed. Absolutely we have discussed they keep just not getting removed. Before we recommend before this committee recommends where this may go. Yeah. If it goes you know if we can fit this into an amendment right to some other bill we will go over this again. Yeah. I just want to make that there because one of the testimony is being offered to us speaks to accepting 3.1 as is and I don't accept 3.1 as is. So that's our that's our work. I mean this yeah. This this element of it is important to just at least put the structure into place and we'll deal with everything as a whole as we progress representative Walsh. Yeah I guess I have a statement to make rather than a question. Speaking as a former classroom teacher in school administrator. I don't like the sound of what's been proposed here this morning. Schools have an extremely difficult job dealing with harassment and bullying behavior and I appreciate you know what's already in statute and education statute for doing this. I think we're we're kind of splitting hairs here and trying to remove schools and other public accommodations. So I guess I'll end my comment there. I'm not in favor of what is being proposed but on the other hand I want this bill to pass and I wouldn't want to disagree but to stand in the way of its being passed. Thank you representative. I guess you spoke a little bit to what my original question was was that this bill did not make crossover so now we're taking more testimony on it. What were we going to do with it? So you said attach it to some other bill. What other bills would we be attaching it to where where would it go? I mean I feel very strongly that this bill needs to be seen in other committees of jurisdiction. Well we will finish leaving the jurisdictional sides you know aside the part of the side. Procedurally we are allowed to attach this as an amendment to a bill that is germane and if there's no bill that's not if we can't find a bill that's germane then we can't attach it. We passed age 320 which which is about discrimination about employment discrimination and therefore it can be argued we haven't gotten a ruling but it can be argued that that would be germane. We don't have yet another employment bill I don't know what's coming over from the senate but it's possible that it could be attached to that. So do we not my understanding was we did not have 320 anymore? We don't just in the senate and if it returns to us or they can take language and attach in their work they can attach amendments on their side whether this would be part of it is up to them but um but it's possible that if they make a change to 320 that that we would have the opportunity to add materials that was germane. Okay thank you I just had no idea what the process would be because I haven't really seen this in action like this before so it's really in the dark. Fair question your your first term ended in your house on a computer without you know I mean it's it's we're all a little bit about how to practice on end of biennium on the calendar so I appreciate the question and the clarification you know the ability to clarify thank you um and everything that goes along with this time which is kind of difficult so I'd like to just um I think I'm going to end this morning's testimony here and um we have a long day ahead of us on the floor and so um I'd like to thank Sarah again and Heather again um so we will as I said we will task our attorney to synthesize the material that we talked about today see how it applies to three one or three it'll be four one you know eventually um but again much like the conversation that we had about the the director consuming us that I really want to I really want to be able to be in a position where we can feel like our work on this is at least bummed up before the next process and then we'll return to it when when we are find a place to look forward yes well that leaves me feeling that I still then would like to continue the discussion about my concern with the sections I keep raising because I think I'm just going to see them in that 4.1 which you you have just stated would feel like we had something but not to attach to something no that's that wouldn't be the final thing like whatever comes we're not we're not ignoring your concerns about about the bill we haven't I think we will return to the bill as a whole okay um I'd rather not wrestle over that right now no um and I'm fine as long as it's real clear that I'm I'm not saying yep let's just button it up no no no no no that language scared me a little I've added a process before we button it up we're going to get to a point where your your concerns are discussed and I get it that you know conclusion yep on on them or or the next conclusion we're not going to we're not going to button this up till the end of april sure without having discussed what we have in 4.1 yeah as as if as if the next day was crossover day right right so that's but but when those changes were made that this was high concerns weren't a part of it's felt like since then this committee looks at what is in our hands as being the structure of what we're going forward with and I just feel that's spinning that conversation keeps not getting had so I appreciate you saying that we want and I don't feel like we've finished the conversation great so that's that's that's I'll leave it right there thank you okay thank you everybody um take the next hour plus I thank you Sarah thank you