 This is May 1, 2020. This is the House Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. And we are looking at S343, which is the bill that would delay implementation of Act 173. First of all, are there any questions that folks have about this bill? We have our ledge council in the room. Are there any questions about this bill? So here's what I'd like to do. There are a couple of options that I want to look at, and I kind of want to be prepared for both of them. We have a reminder about Act 66, which was the lead testing bill. And as you may remember, in order for that testing to be accurate, the samples needed to be taken while school was in session. The state of emergency has shut down schools making that not possible. Ledge council, Michael O'Grady, has looked at that and realized that we would need to make changes related to that. So the question I have right now is, is this something that we will simply add to this bill or if we will do a separate committee bill to do so? And I need to check in with Jim and with Michael and with leadership to see what their preference would be. So what I'd like to do then is set this up in two ways. One will be to take a vote on delaying 173 from the committee now. We will hold that and then see if we're going to take it back up and add the lead delay or if we're just going to pass this on. So what I'd like to do is just be ready for that. So I would entertain a motion to approve, to agree to concur with the Senate's bill S343 related to delaying implementation of Act 173. You're on mute, Larry. So would the lead bill be not sure? I would almost think that we'd want to just do another bill for the lead testing. I'm seeing other people nodding. I'm not sure that it's, that it really matches S343 dealing with dates and dollars and et cetera. I think we should just do a new bill. You know, it's certainly open for discussion, but that would be my feeling. So if I could see either little blue hands or your hand as to whether you would like to wait and just do a separate bill, although I would like to do a separate bill, raise your hands. Kate, I would put myself in the category of happy to listen to the advice of leadership and those who know the process better, but it does seem cleaner to separate the two topics. So I think what we can do then, because it looks like we have, what we could do then is just simply be ready to pass this one today. We'll talk with Ledge Council and leadership and be ready for that on Tuesday. In the meantime, I will be checking to see if that, if that is indeed the preference of the speaker, then we will go ahead and get this on the notice calendar on Monday, which would make it up for action on Wednesday. Caleb? Yeah. And just another point, I think 173 is such a big piece of legislation that delaying it is maybe beneficial to stand on its own just for simplicity of messaging around that because it is so consequential. The other thing is it occurs to me that we're talking about lead now, and I know that was a recently passed bill, but there's probably a few other things out there in the world of education that might need a delay. So it might behoove us to make sure we're thinking of all of them, and then we might do a bill that's around, here are the things we're delaying, because I think it's, for 173 to be delayed on its own is appropriate given the magnitude of that legislation, but it would be good to not have another three bills delaying three things. So to sort of say, okay, let's think about this for a second. Just do this, and then see if we need to catch all we're delaying the following. And maybe that doesn't work that way. It just occurs to me that that's an easier bill to understand. The following currently ongoing initiatives with deadlines need to be delayed. Let's counsel does go through. I think that there's a request that comes. I saw that something from from Michael O'Grady and that they actually go through and see if there are things that need delays. And this is one of the ones that O'Grady identified. Are you aware of that, Jim? I'm not aware of a systematic view of things that might need delay. That question might be best posed to the agency. It had a good sense for what's coming up, I would think. Okay, so what I understand is that Ledge Council have been asked to look at any programs or regulatory requirements that may be affected by COVID-19 pandemic and emergency response. And they put out a question to the Department of Health to see if that is one of the ones that they needed to address. And they've gotten back and said yes, they do. So I'm really just fine to just go ahead. We'll do 173. I just need to get that clarity from leadership. Jim, Jamarie, did you have something? No, no. We were all asked by Luce to get together with this type of that. And I couldn't see anything in education necessarily that was in that category. That was away from me. It was obviously with Michael. But so I think there's more, but we could ask the agency that question. I think that'd be helpful. Right. Yeah. Okay. Larry Coopley, you had a question or a statement? Yeah. S343 has an appropriation in it. Have you checked with appropriations as to whether or not? And we're okay? I have. That is up to that the clerk will, they are aware of it. I'll put it that way. They are aware of the $9,000. Okay. Will it go to appropriations after we vote this out? I believe that will be up to the clerk. And whether that needs to go or not or whether they can just do a drive-by since they already know about it and they've seen the language. But I will follow up on that. We'll just send that to Rebecca. So yeah, so we'll find out, but still be ready on Tuesday. Sarita Austin. Hi. The Senate bill that was on the waiting study, the task force, is that, does that, is that brought up next session? Or is it, can that be delayed? Or where is that, what are the options for that? When this session, at the end of this by any, everything that's on the wall comes down. Everything is dead. Right. Everything needs to start from scratch. I would anticipate that that will be a conversation again. I think it does, it's connected to 173. It's connected to school funding. And the question I think that we may be entertaining is this really all part of a much broader discussion about how we fund public school. Thank you. Very quickly. Got your little blue hand up. Okay. Okay, where we, when we last dropped off, you were asking for a motion. Yes. So I would move that we agreed to concur with the Senate on S 343. Second. Do we need a second? Discussion? Okay. Clerk shall commence to call the roll. Representative Webb. Yes. Representative Coupoli. Yes. Representative Conlon. Yes. Representative James. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Toof. Yes. Representative Bachelor. Yes. Representative Giambattista. Yes. Representative Elder. Yes. Representative Austin. Yes. Yes. Representative Matos. This is Representative Chris Matos and I vote yes. So the vote is 11-0-0. 11-0-0. Okay. Great. Good work team. So that's really it for us for today. Are there any chance for discussion on any topics before we end on Friday? Just about, again, I had emailed you about the districts that happened past a budget. Just, again, what is the process for that in terms of, because it seemed like they really needed some, an answer as soon as possible. I'm just wondering, are we waiting for the Senate or I'm not clear where we left off? So there was an agreement between the House and Senate leadership, which actually included myself and the chair of Senate Ed to agree that bills would start in the Senate. And at that time, the Senate was actually ready for remote voting and we were not that the bills would start there and we would have agreement before a bill left the committee room. We at this point do not have agreement and the Senate at this point has been, has resisted taking further testimony or looking at our bill or engaging in conversation. That is my most recent communication with the chair of Senate education. In the meantime, there is discussion going on at the level of leadership to see if there are alternatives on how we might address this. So our options currently, as I see them are, we concur with the Senate. We wait to hear from leadership. And that's really, really at this point. So do you have a timeline in terms of maybe by next Wednesday? I don't. It's pretty constantly. I would put forward that I'm, I'm, oh sorry, can you hear me? I'm more in favor of concurring with the Senate's version given the Secretary of State's guidance in the past week about remote voting and given the indications we heard from a lot of districts that votes will be attempted. I think that it was interesting for me to learn that the Senate did at least consider the 4% escalator and arrived at their sort of 100% level through what's going to be at the least a bipartisan process. And so it's complicated and I was interested in our version of the bill, but I did think that the Secretary of State's recent ruling on different provisions changed things enough for me that I would, I would vote to concur just to give some a definitive answer. I just speak for myself in that regard. Okay. I hadn't heard that piece of the 100%. So that's, that's a new piece of information for me. Did the Senate say that they would instead of the 87% that they would let 100% percent? So the current law just to clarify current law is the where it is right now is that you may borrow up to 87% of your budget from a bank. At that point your tax rate is set at one dollar. And the understanding is that you continue to vote until you pass a budget. That was set up for a different time when setting up and having another vote is relatively easy. It's also setting up at a time where the electorate, the electorate voting in May does not look that different from the electorate voting on March 2nd. So those are some significant differences. Okay. The, the child, the pushback that we heard from the school boards related to accepting that language is some of them felt that that would actually be worse because that voters would feel comfortable leaving it at last year's budget often with a lack of awareness as to what, what the impact would be, such as having to get rid of 10, 20 teachers under contract or no athletic program or whatever. So that's what, that's the, that's one of the reasons that we've continued the conversation is because of the feedback that we heard that while some of them that might be better, we heard from others that that could be devastating if they're not able to get the vote. The current bill that we had in 6.1 was to say you have three options. There's two or three options, I can't remember, but at any rate, and it, it basically said, you can just take your, your last worn budget and pass that. Another conversation that has come forward in a conversation with, with some, some folks was to where the Senate bill, the Senate bill said, if you don't have a budget by 6.30, you have last year's budget, but you can keep voting. Another option is to say, if you don't have a budget by June 30, you have your last worn budget, but you can keep voting. So that's, that's something that was in conversation at that one point. Thank you. Others? Kate, I, maybe we should hold this conversation on Tuesday just because of wanting to have it on the agenda, but when I did talk a little bit about this as well and, and sort of I, my mind has gone back and forth and back and forth about, well, is what the Senate is offering better than nothing. And for a while I convinced myself that it was, but I had to talk with some school board folks who, who reminded me of the discussion that you bring up that with the sort of fallback of the 2020 spending, that that might influence the way people vote, knowing that, hey, I can vote this down because at least the district can always just fall back on 2020 spending. And which could be, as we heard especially from Milton, I think that could be pretty, pretty devastating. So I remain somewhat scrambled on this. I probably could use the weekend to think about it, probably the weekend for whatever discussions are going on elsewhere to take place and maybe we'll start next week with a new bright, sunny day. Do we, do we know, do we know of, or what discussions are going on elsewhere? Has there been any response from any of you from your school boards that are, I mean, I, did we know what's going on? Dylan has one, Chris Matos has one. I think that's it, isn't it? Yeah, I've got a little Hancock. Yeah, Dylan. I could just give you the perspective that I have a pretty continuous feedback loop with my district and they liked the elements in our proposal. But I think at this point, there is a reality that if we can't find consensus, I don't want to jump to conclusions. I'd like the weekend to check in, but we got to move something sooner or later. And so I'm feeling pretty flexible so long as it provides the district some ground to work within. And, you know, I could see pros and cons to both proposals, but I did get a pretty warm reception last week. Or was it earlier this week recently when we looked at it? There's level funding. I mean, that seems to be the, my point taken that it's not going to work for a lot of the districts. That's what I'm hearing, that it's really troublesome for a lot of districts. So, and I don't know how we get around this, Kate. I honestly don't. I mean, I think you've seen, you know, at least, I mean, Phil is just like steadfast here with what he wants to do. I don't know what's going to happen. Kate, is it accurate to say that some districts have given out rift notices to their teachers, and some have missed that deadline? I think we're past the rift. Do you know the story? I think we're past rift, aren't we? I think we're past rift now, but I do wonder if some are, you know, did it earlier in time. I think the answer to that is, is that, let Jim answer. Okay, Jim, Demary. I was going to say that there are two different things here. One is for a contractor renewal, teachers have to be notified by April 15. But that doesn't mean that you can't lay off teachers at a very date as part of a rift. That would be part of our collective bargaining process in terms of loosening the agreement. So while we're past the April 15 to date, that I don't think it's decisive in terms of whether or not you can do a rift. That's going to be controlled by local bargaining. Right. That'd be another COVID-19 bill in that, in the realm of things happening. I don't know. Um, there was a conversation that I had with a small group earlier today with the three chairs and the speaker, looking at if we were to dream big with COVID money. What are some things that we might consider? Broadband. Broadband. This is what I brought up. I brought up, Brad, you know, technology and there's, we can differentiate it in two ways. One is the energy and technology committee can look at actual broadband build out. We might be actually looking at devices for students or for schools. It's something that we could look at. The other thing I brought up is COVID money for compensatory education for kids who are losing ground. Anything else folks can think of? Can we stretch it for construction, school construction? Can we kind of wind COVID-19 into that? I did bring up, I did bring up that bill in terms of things that we, you know, we're looking at what did we work on and pre-K in literacy, which I didn't see we could, we could do much with at this point in time, but and the agencies are a little busy right now, but I said that it may be worthwhile to consider doing something with our construction bill. I did tell them that I am in conversation with NCSL about having them advocate. Should there be, should there be stimulus money that's for infrastructure to not just make it roads, but include schools? So I did bring that up as something, you know, if we could consider work that we would have liked to have completed, that that might be the one that we would identify as probably the most relevant. Would you agree or not? I would. Yeah. I see a couple. How much, how much money are we talking about? Like how much should we be anticipating if in terms of dreaming big? Yeah, I don't know. It has to do, I think, with additional funds that could come in as well as with our one point, whatever million it is, billion. I got to say state colleges, if that's on the table. I was going to ask about higher ed. I don't know what, how that factors in. And there is, there is conversation going on about having a larger conversation about our Vermont state colleges. We are going to have a joint meeting in mid-May with commerce to hear from the New England Board of Higher Education as to trends in higher ed and workforce. And Avery, I think you scheduled that now, Avery. I think it's, it'll be a joint meeting with commerce. So what about child care? I mean, you know, I don't really know how this works. I mean, is this just you line up, you line up your most urgent, dire, critical, you know, areas of inequity and try to figure out, you know, how, how a pandemic has shown a bright light on the areas where your state isn't working. I mean, I don't know how, you know, I don't know how, how you try to get issues in line for funds, federal funds flowing through the filter, but, you know. Larry? I'm just looking at, looking at some notes and I'd be very cautious about really dreaming big time on COVID funds. Only if it has a direct nexus to COVID will those funds be used. So I'd be very, very careful about how you approach that money if there will be, especially through the agency. I'd be very cautious about doing a lot of dreaming about cash. Yeah, we were just to provide, be providing dreams, not making decisions about it. Avery, just let me know that we are meeting with New England Board of Higher Education on May 19th. Great. The only other thing I would mention in the short term is transportation, just school districts are doing some things with transportation that are a little outside of the normal contracts, especially in relation to food service. And I don't know that it's causing big problems yet. I think that they've had, there have been, you know, good partnerships on both sides of those contracts. But to the extent there's some short term dollars, that is a sort of extraordinary service is being provided by our school districts right now. And I'd love to see any, any short term money flow the other way to help offset those costs. When we had the secretary in, we brought that subject up and he thought that that would be absolutely clear COVID type expense. That's an expense that's totally COVID related. Yeah. So that makes, that makes sense to me. Me too. Anything else? So, okay, so I will have another conversation. We're going to talk about lead on Tuesday. We'll have another conversation about, about the 19 districts as well. Where the committee stands on that. So is that a, is that a, is that a vote cake? I mean, do we vote on that the 19 districts or just, we don't have a bill yet. Okay. So there will be. Okay. Yeah. I was just going to ask what the plan was for committee time on Tuesday. Well, at the moment it's just led. Okay. Do we know what time? Yes. We're on the same times now. It's Avery, it's, it's noon on Tuesday, Tuesdays it's noon and Fridays it's two to four if we need meetings. And so we're every, Friday from two to four. Yes. Tuesday from noon to two. Yes. That's if we have work to do. Okay. And then I've got the floor schedule. Great. Glad things are settling in. Okay. Do I email Avery the record of action and copy Rebecca? Hold it for now. We can get it in as late as Sunday because she's working remotely. So let me just make sure that we're going to, this is the way we're going to do it. Okay. I just have to check with each other on that. Sorry. Okay. And I'll let you know. Maybe text, yeah, text me or email me if you need me to send that in over the weekend. Yeah. Sounds good. All right. I think we, we can go off.