 There has is nothing in the crisis point out the vulnerabilities in the system. And I think certainly one of the vulnerabilities that we're seeing is the inequities in a system when public education is set down, or at least public schools are shut down. I think the inequities are becoming pretty well defined for us. Our role is not clear yet. The role of the legislature is not clear yet what we can do. We're going to be hearing regularly from the superintendents, the school boards, the principals, the teachers, we're going to be hearing from them, the special administrators weekly to get an update. And I'm also working to get a week from the agency as to what their needs will be. Are there things that they will need from us? I am really happy that Laura source from this bit is here to help us understand some of the risks that schools are addressing some of the work that you've been doing during this period of time to just give us an update. So welcome Laura. Thank you. Can you hear me all right. Yes. So I'm going to read so I'm sorry I'm not making eye contact but thank you to chairperson web and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Laura Sores. I am the president of the Vermont School Board Insurance Trust. We are a member program. So many. In fact, most of the schools in the state are members of one or both of our programs. And I want to talk to you about some of the risks and worries that we're addressing related to COVID ID. Excuse me, COVID-19 and our programs. We have an unemployment program. We have about 140 members in that program. And our worries in the area of unemployment is that, as being a member of our program, they do not pay into the state unemployment fund they don't have a set rate. We pay a much lower rate into vis-vits unemployment program. We have a cost savings to districts in that way we actually also charge them based on three years of claims that helps schools budget and smooth their unemployment expense. And we've had some experience with unusual unemployment claims back in 2008 in the recession. So there's a couple of things that we're paying attention to and dealing with in that program. We do expect that schools will have increases in unemployment claims, even while most school employees stay employed. Because school districts as other employers are responsible for claims for five quarters. So a year and a quarter. So there will be people who left the school district sometime in the last five quarters who are unemployed now because of the COVID-19 situation. And those claims are in part the responsibility of school districts. In 2008, half of our additional claims came from those employees, people who left the district prior to the crisis, but the district is responsible for paying some unemployment claims. So that's something we're watching. The other thing that we've noticed in the new law, I believe in H742, which is on the governor's desk, is that people who voluntarily leave employment in this crisis will be eligible for unemployment benefits. Now, we understand why that's being done and that it makes sense, but that will increase the number of employees or people who are subject to unemployment claims and we reimburse those ourselves. So we don't expect that we will have any relief from the state or federal government, but those claims will still be the obligation for school districts. We're also paying attention to the federal government's increase in unemployment benefits that are available to people because of COVID-19. And again, the way our program works is, no matter what the claim is, if someone is eligible, we pay it out of our funds. We did not get any relief from the state or federal government in the recession, and we don't appear to be eligible for any relief from the federal or state government in this period. Now, our program is actually very well funded. We have significant reserves that we have kept in place for the last several years, and we believe that we will be able to pay these claims out of our reserves without increasing rates to school districts, but depending on the scope and the length of time this goes on, eventually we may have to raise our future rates and that could impact school budgets. So that's the things that we're following in the unemployment program, and I can pause there or go into other areas, Chairperson Webb, I don't know if you have questions at this point. Are there questions from the committee? Is it my system that's breaking up a little bit or Laura's going in and out for me, is it for everybody? No, just for me, okay. So our second program is our multi-line program, and we have 47 of the supervisory union supervisory districts in that program. And our liability program covers things like workers' compensation and all of the different liability property coverage, including we defend IEP claims for school districts. Now, foremost, we are concerned about the education of children, the health and safety of school employees, trying to help everyone through this crisis. We also recognize that a lot of issues and questions that are unique to this crisis in school districts need clear and quick answers. So one of the things that VisBet has done in conjunction with this superintendent's association is convened a group of education attorneys that are working with the agency of education, trying to identify what are the questions schools have, how do we get them clear, concise answers in a timely way, and making sure that safety is front and center and making sure that schools are continuing to provide the free and appropriate public education. I'm going to talk about three areas, all of which were touched on by the people who testified last Friday in front of the committee. So school safety. Schools are striving to meet the needs of their students in an environment that has less controls and safeguards for those who are most vulnerable. There are many one to one virtual interactions on platforms and video conferencing, Google Hangout, Zoom, personal devices, telephones, things that and methods that haven't been widely used before. The concerns that have come up range from student data privacy, FERPA compliance, HHB oversight and compliance which is still the responsibility of schools and overall safety. Last week the FBI issued a memorandum about school closings due to COVID-19 and increased potential risk of child exploitation. The FBI are warning parents educators caregivers and children about the increased risk of exploiting our children online in this environment, and schools have to figure out how to navigate this new dynamic. As distance learning plans are being developed. Our hope is to get information out to the field so they understand this balance that they must strike between having to have regular contact with teachers and students and meaningful contact, and make sure it happens in a safe, appropriate and supportive manner. Social abuse and molestation claims are one of our highest potential exposures, and it's an issue that's been prominent around the country in the last year or two especially. So that's an area that we're trying to help schools think about again with the consultation of a team of education attorneys, so that they can try to address these issues appropriately. Education is another area of liability. And I know Aaron McGuire has spoken to you on this students and families have educational rights and protections under federal law that school districts are still required to adhere to. But ID DEA was not written for this environment. Our educational turn attorneys have specialty special ed experience and they're collaborating again with the agency of education to identify what the issues are. The attorneys are meeting weekly with folks at the agency and trying to develop creative solutions. We don't know yet to what extent we'll see an increase in claims against school districts for failure to provide services by an IEP, but we're hoping that hearing officers and agency officials will take into account the limitations that are created by distance for all students, not just students with disabilities. In the meantime, we're trying to focus on identifying the questions and getting answers, resources and tools into the hands of educators as quickly as possible. And the final area that we're paying attention to is the labor and employment area. School districts as employers are functioning in extraordinary and fluid times. State and federal laws, the employment laws that have always been in effect, local bargaining agreements, and school districts nature as employers are not structured to easily adapt to this wide ranging and evolving issue. VISBIT and its attorney group has been offering general guidance, but in the final analysis, superintendents have to be guided by the collective bargaining agreements, the executive orders that Governor Scott has given, and guidance documents from the agency of education and Vermont Department of Health. They have to seek advice from their legal counsel and try to maintain the employer-employee relationship that has been established through previous decisions. For many school districts, the supervisory union is one of the largest employers in the region. Liability issues associated with labor and employment are things like wrongful termination, harassment, and access to the state and federal leave programs or lawsuits from parents claiming that their educational services are not provided in a sufficient way. We're worried especially if we have limited staff due to the conditions that staff are dealing with at home or their own illness. So these are the big areas that we're paying attention to. And again, there's a lot of unknowns at this point. But we're working closely with all parties to try to help navigate this new environment. Thank you. Representative Matos and then Representative Conlon and, oh, Matos does not have a question. So Representative Conlon and then Representative James. Laura, going back to the unemployment issue. So you're basically a self-funded unemployment benefit provider. I thought the federal stimulus package or if you want to call it, was going to assist with nonprofits who were self-funding their unemployment benefits. Does Vismut not fall under that? Or am I wrong? Well, we have no information yet to know for sure where we fall. In the past, when the state and federal government didn't build in the recession claims into employers future rates, that does not apply to reimbursable employers. I know one of the things the federal government's trying to do is to provide loans to small businesses so they don't have to lay off employees and have them go on unemployment. And again, we're not expecting wide unemployment from school. It's right now laying people off. We're more looking at those people who have been employees in the past that are attributed back to school districts as the employer. And we will certainly make sure that any benefits under the federal law accrue to us and our program if we're eligible. But it's reading the federal language at this point. It is not clear that we have that eligibility. Okay. Thank you very much. Representative James. Yeah, thank you. I had a similar question following along. I don't think I understood the, the five quarter description that you gave by how I understood that was that the, the, the Vismut policy basically is portable and follows a person to another job even if it's not in the school system for five quarters. I didn't understand. Sorry. Sure. So when someone goes on unemployment, their unemployment cost is assigned back to the employer and they look back for 15 months. So one year plus another three months. So if we have someone that left the school district, for example, last June 30th, they didn't get reemployed with the school district, they went to work somewhere else. They are now laid off because of COVID-19. The school district still has a responsibility to help pay for that unemployment claim. If they get laid off within 15 months after leaving the school district. The school district is partially responsible for their unemployment costs in the future. All right. Thank you. Good question. Thank you. Others. So it sounds to me, Laura, like there's a lot of things that are still in the process of opening up. We don't know yet what the actual impacts are going to be, but you are looking ahead to see that they will definitely be coming forward. I know I think we're all pretty concerned about our students with disabilities and access, which is a significant challenge when the school is closed. So we will definitely be standing by on that. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Laura. Thank you for your other questions or concerns. Did you put, did you raise your hand on your little, your little app? I see it, but I'm trying to get you ready. I can't find the little hands. So anyway, I have to get my son back up here. One is I'm wondering about a timeline or benchmarks that you can keep us informed as to. In terms of funding or, you know, if you're getting close to not being able to fund unemployment claims like how will you keep that, you know, our committee updated on how things are going. The second is I'm just wondering, and I'm not trying to create more paperwork for anybody, but I'm wondering how special educators are documenting, you know, doing a really good job of documenting their efforts to implement. And I also asked Aaron this question, is the federal government at all considering revising the requirements for special ed for IDA during this time specifically just into the executive order, the federal order is lifted. Because it seems like it's just, there are sometimes I just can't even figure out how you would deliver the work, you know, the write ups in the IEP, I just can't figure out how that can happen in this in this time. And I think Aaron is the one who needs to speak to the special ed issues and is most familiar with what's happening at the federal level, I know it's a concern across the nation. Again, what our program does is if a school district does have a lawsuit that they have not followed the IEP, we will defend them for that. And documentation helps with defense, obviously, because everyone who has good intentions and I believe everyone does have good intentions at this time. You know, we want to recognize those, those good intentions. We will certainly keep the committee updated if we start to see an uptick in claims or worry about unemployment claims. This is going to take a while to play out. And again, both of our programs have appropriate reserves, especially for a time like this. But eventually as you deplete your reserves, you have to rebuild them. So we're not imagining right now that the budget impact is going to hit schools in the next year, or maybe even two fiscal years. But eventually, you know, we need to maintain funds to meet the needs of the program of our member schools and we will do that. But we will keep you updated. Absolutely. Thank you. I just say representative Austin that I, I spoke with General Counsel yesterday about this issue. I do believe that they may have posted guidance, especially guidance on the website. I have not looked at it yet. And as I understand it, if we can if we can get the AOE and next Thursday, perhaps they can speak to this. I believe that they are. They are looking to see if they can at least get waivers and some of the paperwork. So they can focus more on kids and not on, especially paperwork. But, but there'll be a really good question for the AOE as well. One thing is that they did not the federal bill did not do some of the things that that folks would have wanted from the from the district that Aaron spoke about anything else. Laura, thank you so much for coming in. I'm sure that that this is a pretty heavy time for your organization. Well thank you and I appreciate all of your work. Thank you. Okay, let's just take five minutes for the other folks to come in. We have. Oh, no, we don't excuse me. We're going to have Jim Jim is going to start talking with us about the bills this we're, what we're going to look at right now is the bills that have come over from the Senate. We just get an idea that sort of a high level view of the aspects of these bills, and then for for us for our committee to look at those things that look like they're things that that are relevant to the situation that we're in one or two are really in the must pass or three perhaps needs need to wait another year. We won't be voting yet. We might just do it, you know, straw polls, but we won't be doing doing any voting this week on any bills. We're not really set up for that quite yet. So, Jim, Jim Ray. We have five bills that looks like we're going to be looking at. And the first one is as 224. And these bills, these bills all have active names that don't necessarily relate to what the bills are doing now so let's start with as 224. Okay. Okay, so for the record, Jim Daymore of this console, we're walking through as 224, which is the miscellaneous education bill. It was voted out of Senate education. It has not moved from there that I know of so it's not gone to the Senate floor yet. So if we can scroll down Avery, a bit. The first few sections you'll be familiar with because section one deals with the closure of post-secondary schools and how to deal with student records. This was in the miscellaneous bill last year. And you and the Senate Education Committee both have versions of this, which were very similar to each other. So, this looks quite fuzzy on my screen. Do people see this? That's better. Yeah. So my question for Chair Webber is, do you want me to walk through this or just go through the bill section by section first and give you a sense of what's in it. I'd be inclined to just say, these are the topic headings that the bill is going to like, for example, you know, in the first three sections, the AVIC bill. We could kind of view it that way first. I think it would be helpful. Okay, if we can scroll down then Avery to section two, this part of the same theme. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. Section two is just a transition section to require AVIC to amend its memorandum of understanding. So it goes with section one. If you scroll down further. Section three, a bit further. So there's a requirement in a little bit, Avery, if you could. Is there a requirement in law today that superintendent's principles take the oath and that's been being appealed in this bill. That was also in the miscellaneous bill of last year, at least the Senate version of it. So we're all of these sections. This is this is our our private institutes of higher education that we're closing. Are all of these similar to bill that we passed last year. Yes. Okay, so we we've already looked at these we've already passed it is just showing up again in this bill. Well, this is the same version of the very mind differences from what you, you did last year. Okay, I think maybe they're almost identical now, actually, very, very close. Do you remember what bill that is in this because we have a miss. We have it. Don't do it now but if you could help us know how this relates to a bill that I think is. I think last year's miscellaneous bill was h 164. Nice work. It's 164. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, and then every if you scroll down to section four. This was in the last year to this is small school support. And all this does is it fixes a technical issue. Which was part of law, but that log updated in July of 2019. In this language. This is part of the updated law now, but should be. So this is basically taking pre K students out of account for small school grants. So if you start a pre K program. You want this qualify yourself from small school grants because of pre K students. So that's what this does. Was this in a bill last year or not or is this anywhere else. Yep. Okay. Okay. So this is on wellness programs. So this is doing a few things. This is revising current statute to expand the definition of a wellness program from just fitness and nutrition to that plus comprehensive health education, which is much broader field. And it requires importantly, if you scroll down to. Yeah, keep going. Sorry. Go down to section six, it requires that the school on this policy, which now includes a broader definition, be updated and distributed school districts. So that's what this is doing. So this is basically requiring that school districts have a best practice approach to it's wellness programs. And then section seven. This was in your language. The last year or two years ago, this is the one with the four, I believe, rep to your Matisse district. So Matisse with elections reunified school districts and talks about how you deal with electing members of the board and filling vacancies. Okay. So this was in a, we passed this sunset and now it's being put back in place another year. Okay. So this is all pending, hopefully at some point down resources, which is cleanup of title or section right whole area around. 11. Yeah. Yeah. So if we move on to section eight. Moving over from the agency does with a very specific and technical issue, which is what happens when a union school district has a member that itself is a school district. And how do you work the mechanics of voting elections. Because usually you're relying on that step forward in the town. But now the member is not a town but it's another school district. So it's basically looking through the member school district to the number of towns to perform those functions is a very mechanical issue. But that's what that addresses. And this is what is another thing that would normally be fixed if we had gotten to chapter 11. Okay. So we just got since a year again. Okay. So these two things section seven and eight then are really just getting us through another year. Correct. Okay. And then section nine. So with making menstrual hygiene products, both available on in K to 12 schools. And mayor that doesn't embarrass the student. The purpose of the school for a second every to subsection a just to read the purpose here. It tends to ensure that a female student attending a public school or an approved independent school. But has access to menstrual hygiene products at no cost and without the embarrassment of having to request them. So this language here basically requires at schools stock. It's, it's bathrooms used by female students in grades five to 12 with feminine feminine hygiene products. Further. Now we get to special education. And this is the changes that are required. In order to make act 173 function properly. So let me pause here for a second. Last year, you recall, at the end of session, the effective date for the new census grant funding change was pushed out by one year. By one 2022, I believe. I can remember but one year out, but there are a number of date changes within the language of statute that weren't changed that have to change to make the statute work. So the number of dates that didn't get moved last summer but sure been moved. So I'm going to throw that in detail now, but the two things this these sections are doing is moving dates to conform to that date change. And to making technical changes requested by the agency of education. And very small technical things so I'm going to throw this with you now but there are four or five sections here. They deal with those two themes. So the problem of postponing this another year. It is significant then. Because 173 cannot operate effectively throughout these changes. So we scroll down quite ways every to keep going to you. Yeah, keep going. I can tell you when. Yep, keep going. Keep going. Okay. I'm going to go to page number. Here. Good. I don't have the documents printed out. So I'm not sure what the page number. I do. So if you get, get to the, to the area, I can let you know what it is. I'm on page 15. And 15 ideas with gender balance on the UVM and velocity causing boards. So recognize is that the UVM board has an overwhelming majority of men. So the VSC board has gender balance currently on the board. And this is such a goal goal for the UVM board to achieve gender balance for 2025 and maintain it. And for the VSC board to maintain its current gender balance. So if we scroll down further, Avery. Okay, 16. So that's what this section does. So if you would. Next section. Okay, stop here if you would. So, can't see the page number, but this is section 16. And this is a proficiency based education. And it's basically appropriation. So recognizes that. That there's already an appropriation to fund projects that focus on proficiency efforts. And it's section, since it can be here is appropriate for $400 for that purpose. Okay. So in terms of, in terms of requiring changes in. In proficiency based education just by some funding to facilitate some further work in this area. Okay. And then the last section is effective date so if you scroll down a bit further. There and then as a passage of the bill will be an act related to making miscellaneous changes to education laws. So Jim, I noticed that this bill, I believe is, is currently in appropriations because it has a $400,000 appropriation in it, which means that this bill. Therefore we might want to be looking at the items that we should pull out of this. And this is, you know, to the committee to think about as well. We're going to put the items in here and pull forward the miscellaneous ad bill that we have on the wall. And strike that and address the things that we know we're going to need to pull out of this bill that that we don't want to get stuck in ways and means in in appropriations. We have a bill that was passed by the Senate. Oh, from last year, from last year. Oh yeah okay. So that that's a vehicle that's a miscellaneous ad bill, it's a vehicle that would be an appropriate place to to work. I think it's as 164 or something. We'll look at how. Okay. Peter. I have a question. I have a couple of questions. Do you know did the Senate take additional testimony on the AVIC college closings issue. Did they take a big did it was. Yeah, I'm sure Susan set me testify earlier in the session it's been a while ago. Okay. I'm quite sure that she doesn't like this language. She did not. She did not like it. I'm just wondering about the financial viability of AVIC these days given the fact that they've had what four members. Paying members drop out. Another question is the wellness section. What's the origin of that if you know it. Yeah, the origin that was a request from a constituent initially and dealt with updating the, the wellness policies to conform to our national standard. And that evolved a little bit through committee discussion to actually amend the set the statute as well to expand the definition of wellness, as I really mentioned. And it changed the language about the policy of it as well in terms of how that would be worded, but it came from basically from a situation. All right, and you know, if much testimony was taken on that issue and how it unfolded. There was testimony. I'm not sure how much there was early on. Again. Yep. Act 173 UVM. And then proficiency based education. Okay. No, I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Okay. Kathleen. Yep. Thanks. Just a couple of questions. Wait. Am I unmuted. Yes, I am. A couple of questions. So Kate, is it. I think I had previously heard a couple of times and so anything with an appropriation in it is on hold at this point, right? I believe that anything with an appropriation is, is going to be sticky right now. Right. Okay. So we can assume that that anything that has money in it in this bill is going to be shuttered, shuttered off to the wayside. That's going to be right now. That language is in Senate appropriations. Our language for literacy is in house appropriations. Yep. I would say, and likely, likely our, our. Our construction bill will likely end up in appropriations as well. So we don't. Those are our decisions to be made by those committees. But it's I think it's an important thing for us to understand. And I think I can talk with Jim to look at the bills, the vehicles that we have on the wall. And I think that since we don't have possession of this one, but it does have language that looks like it's important. That we might be able to, to pull. Does that sound appropriate to the committee? Yeah, I just, I just wanted to make sure I was, I kind of thought that in this, in this new world. And appropriately, you know, our job was really going to be to move at this point only bills that are really vital and that don't have any dollars attached. So I wanted to make sure we were all kind of that I was understanding right and that that was sort of our mission. I think that you are understanding right. Other folks. Go ahead. Well, we talk a little bit later about the UVM section or. Yes, we can talk about all of them. I think. I think in this bill, we've got the AVIC language. Hearing that there's something about that's something that we should address now. Whether it's necessary whether we need testimony. We have the small schools thing. Which we've passed in the past, which doesn't have money in it like something. But this way. Who has an interest in more on the AVIC section here. I see Coupoli, I see Kathleen. Okay, I see a few people nodding. So, so should we, should we, from some slightly then I'll talk with Jim afterward. Jim and Larry and I can, I can talk about what to do about the AVIC piece, whether that we need to move. The next thing is the small schools grant. Related to pre K. That does seem to be something that we could fight a spot for. If it seems appropriate, how about a thumbs up if it seems appropriate. For us to address that language. I saw two thumbs, three thumbs. Four thumbs. Oh, good. All right. Look at the thumbs. We got the thumb icons. We are so I took. Okay. One to address. The well, I don't have any thumbs, but I am, I'm okay. Oh, good. Thank you. Okay. Some of us are all thumbs and some of us are thumbs. So the wellness program. Is that something to address now or something that we wait on? I'm seeing some weight on. So at the moment I'm seeing that we wait on school wellness. At the moment. That's what I'm seeing. We'll, we'll check in with, with folks later about that, but we'll wait on that. Okay. Can I interrupt for a second? Please. If whoever's operating could put us all back on the screen. We could actually see each other. There we go. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Good. There's then there's section seven and eight, which have to do with the reason we haven't been able to get to that. I think we can probably find a place for these two items. Okay. Okay. So we'll find a place for seven and eight then. Section nine menstrual hygiene products. I'm going to have folks talk. Let's talk about that one. I've got to have Larry and I love this. I love this. I love this. I love this. I love this about that. I just love. Whether that's something that we move forward on. Section 10 is the census grant. Related to 173. Excuse me. So in 73 census grant grant, I am inclined to say that we find a place for this. Okay. Okay. I think we can find a place for that. Jim. And. Hey, Kate. Yeah. I got a question for Jim. Back up section three. What's the, what's the reasoning around getting rid of that? Striking that out. And what's it, you know, kind of four. So to speak. Well, I think the reason is. I think that's why. Okay. Okay. It looked like that was put in in the 60s, I think. Wasn't that that what I saw. Interesting. I didn't even know they, they had it taken up. Like that. Interesting. Okay. Okay. So that gets us through 173. So everything related to 173. Okay. Those sections. We want to keep track of. UVM. Gender balance. Is that a high needs? I'm seeing. I'm seeing the men say no. Yeah. I couldn't find my hand razor. I just, I want to at least make sure we talk about that. I just want to make sure that it's, I just want to make sure that it's, it's urgent. You know, I'm not a co-sponsor of that bill and. Remembering at the time thinking that. That it was a really important goal, but it wondering whether it needed to be set in statute. So I just want to make sure that if we feel that's important to move it ahead this year, that we have time to talk about it. Right. And then finally, I'm not sure if we can put that in the right place. But it's not. Not to affect the COVID urgent. That's for sure. And I know I've seen articles saying that it seemed like UVM was, you know, maybe moving on this now and taking that seriously. I hope. Like I said, it's not, it's not that I don't think it's an important provision. It's just. I have been wondering from the beginning if it really needs to be a law, you know, set in statute. So I'd love to hear from Dylan on that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Someone, you know, say no, but I'd be inclined to say that that is something that we would need testimony on. And. It doesn't fit in the category of urgent. Okay. But we will, we will. It's something we want to drop. It's something to consider. But we don't. We don't necessarily have time for testimony. Kate, if I could just interrupt for a second. I do think, you know, since this is a public meeting we're having here that those of us who are maybe shaking our head or going like that. Yeah. I know for me, a lot of this isn't based on that. I don't think it's an important topic, but it's a lot of it's just based on where we're at in the urgency of the other things that are more important. Thank you for that clarity. And I was realizing that because I think this is something that we care about. It's just that it's not meeting the urgency. Requirement. It's not it's not in the urgent category, but it's important. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's important that we realize that. You know, leadership may decide we're only going to do things that are important. So we need to decide that basically, you know, soon. So let's in that. Let's let's go through these bills and just get the high level understanding of what's here. And then I. Leadership. Who is also working with the Senate. To see what we actually are going to be able to get through this year. And see what, what we want to be picking up next year. So. Um, S 46. That's still in the Senate as well. Yeah. Okay. So. Can we pull it up? Okay. And scroll down a little bit. So this, this deal is with the, the, um, the report on equalized people. So this basically. Has some findings at the beginning. Which I think we can skip through. So let's scroll down a bit. So this requires to stop here. Section two. Requires that the agency. In collaboration with the state board. And various stakeholders, which are listed. Uh, develop a plan to implement. The reports recommendation. Using one of the mock models. Sorry. Models in that report. So there's a table E one in that report. Um, which has weights. Um, and, uh, that's what they're being asked to, um, um, develop and implement the station plan around. So if we can scroll down a bit further. Um, These are the, um, the things they have to consider as I do that. Uh, sort of timeline for design. Uh, to be sensitive to property tax rates. Um, consideration of the formulas that are actually with the provisions of law. Uh, and then scroll down a bit further Avery, if you would. Um, Uh, So also the state board have not less than six public meetings in different reasons of the state. To educate and to get input. Um, on the, um, on the plan. And then the plan will be delivered in time. For you to take action next year to implement. Okay. And that's Dylan. That's an extended approach at the moment. Right. I'm not sure. Is it. There's no. Go back to that again. Um, Avery. And scroll down further. Uh, Yeah. This is a aspirational statement by taking action. There's no appropriation in here. Um, So I'm not sure if it's an appropriations. Well, it says that, um, three 24 was referred to appropriations. Okay. Rule 31. I don't, I don't know. I'm trying to trace those on the system. And was that giving me good results? Yeah. Yeah. I'm looking at it on the, um, On the legislative website. And it says it was at floor action. Sent on three 24 at appropriations. So. It's going forward. This is, this is S for sex. Yep. So I'm looking at. Okay. It was the one that was labeled an act related to this. It was, it was the old, uh, ethnic studies. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know why it was sent to appropriations. Well, Because it has significant implications to finance. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And the next one we actually have, which is the after school task force, which has been presented to us. Um, or at least we heard from the Senate. I don't think, do we hear for, I don't think we heard from you. Did we hear from you, Jim? I don't remember. Um, Well, let's just go through it again. Okay. So, uh, Yeah. This one I believe has passed the Senate, right? Um, Yes. Yeah. Um, So going past the findings, if we can go down every two, section two. Okay. So this creates a new task force. Um, Uh, To consider my recommendations and the framework for the cost of and the amount of funding sources for access to give us after school programs. There's a task force. Um, If you scroll down further, every. Uh, usual structure of members are here. The usual suspects are here. Keep going. Yep. Keep going. Um, Okay. Keep going. Yeah. You keep going to this page. Yeah. Okay. If you pass here. Uh, I'm parsing duties. Um, Sorry. Go up a little bit. Uh, Go up to. Yep. Go up to the previous page. Uh, Go up to the previous page. Uh, Go up a little bit further. Sorry. One more page. So I get to the power powers and duties. Okay. That's good. Stop there. Thanks. Okay. So powers and duties and task force. Um, Specifically mapping. Existing programs. How they can gaps in access, et cetera. Uh, recommending best practices and key evidence based strategies to maximize. Health and substance abuse prevention. Um, Considering a report that was done earlier. If we scroll down every submit. Uh, Four to review the session results of, um, A grant program. And then to explore all finding sources. Uh, And if you scroll down a bit further, It says shop a first solution instead of not drop on the city's education fund. Um, And, uh, And then the reports do back. Uh, December 15. So it had something about not using the ed fund, I think. Yeah. So initially this bill came out of committee with a. Preference for using, uh, Revenue from the canvas. Tax and regulate. Assuming it. A bunch of passes. Uh, but that was, uh, that was taken out on the floor. And, uh, rather than having a specific measure of canvas. It just said, but it says now. Um, above, which is on the screen, but basically. There's four funding sources that don't impact the education fund. Okay. Does this need the. I'm just looking for that. So this does not need the S. 54. Which was, which is the case. It doesn't need it as a strafter now. Okay. Okay. Even as a pastor of that, a standard education, because the task force is only asked to look at solutions for funding with a preference toward using canvas tax. If it eventually comes to me, but anyway, I thought I was a stroke. Okay. Questions. Kathleen. Do you have a question? I did have a question, but my dog is barking. So. I withdrew my question. Um, my only question was it's, it looks like the only appropriation in this, uh, for this task force would be the per diem for the members. Thanks. Okay. I might be behind here. I just want to make sure. Um, Representative matters. Did you have a question? No. Okay. Um, Representative Conlon. Uh, just, um, why wasn't the, the per diem appropriation calculated on this? Or did I just not see it? Sorry. Sorry. Let's go back to the very end of the bell. Keep going. Okay. Step here. Thanks. Um, From funds available from appropriation. So there's funds available in, uh, another appropriation. They're using for this purpose. That are available today. Yes. From 2018. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think there's some funding questions that still remain. On that. That one. Um, Sarita. And then Larry. Too late to get some students on the task force. That would be something that we would discuss. Okay. Um, So students. And, um, Larry. Yeah, Peter. Um, I was going to ask the same question. So we're good there. With the funding issue. Okay. Um, So. We're thinking about all these. These bills that we're going to do. Um, And then there's the S one 66, which is the state board of Ed. Bill. Looks like it's. S one six six. It's a long dollars, but since he pays it's long. I think I was talking about, about it at this stage, I think going through it. Yeah. So. This bill, there's a couple of things. The board of the chair of the state board of education. Initiated this bill with. And the goal is to move functions that the. State board is not able to perform. Because I have no staff. Over to the agency, which is actually in fact performing those functions. Um, So what this blows up does is it takes, um, Today on the backup today. All will make the authority lies with the state board of education. With this bill does is it moves will make the authority. From the state board to the agency of education. For a variety of topics. So about two thirds of the state boards will make the authority. Will be moved from the state board to the agency of education. And then. The other thing it does is. Um, Draw theme. Has the agency of education. Implement implementing. Uh, Wolves. So. Again, the state board even think a doctor will. They don't have the staff to implement. Even the rules they adopt. So the idea is to, um, Is to clarify that the agency will be carrying out basically. Uh, those functions. So those are the two themes. Uh, basically moving will make the authority over to the agency. And having execution. Function. Uh, Aligned with that more toward the agency. Where they've got the staff to do it. And this bill here is to compromise position between the, Uh, Uh, The, um, Chair of the state board and the secretary of education. Uh, And this language with a few exceptions was agreed to by both. And then where there were a couple of these agreements. Uh, the. So the main, the main one is just, it's a form, It's a format issue. Um, It's how we get to the powers and duties section. How the. We're making authority is. Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, I'm trying to help. Who making authority is, um, Is addressed, uh, there's also the same other way, But they have different ways of getting to the same conclusion. So it's really about how the words are expressed at the outcome. What, But in fact, what this bill does, in large part, while the rulemaking is different, changing, giving the agency rulemaking authority is new. But a lot of what this bill does is just reflect reality. Right. Yes, because most of the, most of the statutes related to the fact when we had a commissioner rather than an agency department rather than an agency. Okay. All right, we're going to need to hear from them. To find out the need to move on it now versus waiting. Which is I think our question on everything before us is how much needs to be now and how much can wait. All right. I think that's it. Can I just ask a question on the last one? So there's no danger that the state board will be sunsetted if another bill passed and this didn't. I don't believe that passed. And the, that was, was it government ops or I can't remember which committee was looking at that, but I'm not sure that stands for it. I don't think that was. Yeah, it was gun ops because. Okay. So, so that. We don't have, I guess we just need to clarify whether we have a concern whether the state board would be sunsetted. Or if another bill passed and this didn't. So there was some of that broke up, but we did pass. Remember the, the gov ops bill that we passed on the floor. It was a thing on Thursday or Friday that Caleb spoke to. On the advisory panel. Oh, right. And so that did not have anything about the state board in it. I don't think it did, but we take a look at that one. I don't think it did. I don't think it did. I don't think it did. Because we had spoken about taking that out. Okay. Working on it. Right. I mean, Caleb. I was just going to say the language that. We use for, and I'm going to get the numbers mixed up now, but for what basically was the Senate special ed bill. That had previously been, and I think it was age six, the state board of education. The state board of education. That was the one where a previous draft had struck the state board of education. So that's the most recent time we kind of saw that language. But in fact, we went out of taking everything out of that bill that pertained to education. And going because it was really just about that special advisory language. So anyway, that just that, that was, I think the most recent place, that was the state board of education. So we had a draft that included that SBE. Language. I just got verification that that was, they had a provision in the introduced bill to sunset, the state board of ed, and we took that out. So, so there would be no change or they would not be sunsetted. And this would not go in. So that's another point of discussion for us. As we're looking at the things that we must do and the things that can wait. And there's no money in this for staffing the state board, right? No. Thank you. I believe that there was a go. I believe that the state board was looking to have some support. In hallway conversation. Okay. There's S226. Right. Everybody have that one? Great. Thank you. Okay. So this bill is S226. And it deals with state public school employee benefits. And if you scroll down a bit. Yeah. That's good. Right there. So what happened was as part of the first year, statewide negotiation of healthcare benefits for. School employees, there were some issues that came up on both sides. That they wanted to have to clarify. So the language in this bill. Reflects an agreement. I believe I can say that agreement between the NDA. And the. The reps for the employers. So we're not going to a lot of detail here. The first part of this language here deals with definitions because. The original bill. Had inadvertently excluded certain, certain employees of schools. So basically. Just hold down a bit further every. Yeah. So school employee includes finding the individuals. And every to scroll down half a page. Yeah. Go up a bit further. Sorry. Too far. Yeah. So we're listing out who is included here. So the certified. Certified employee, for example. Have been excluded by mistake. So that's now put back in. And then it excludes the role of a super. The person who serves as a superintendent. Given the fact that they really are management. So they've been excluded from, from. Being included in the covered employees here. If you scroll down further. Till you find some underlying of strength language. Okay. Okay. I think here's good. This is just cleaning up some differential issues. So that's a very technical change. You go further. Do it. Yep. Keep going. Okay. He passed here. D allows members to commission. You may recall the commission has. The commission has a number of employees. Who represent school employers. And five members who represent school employees. And this says now that those members can be removed. By whoever appointed them without costs. So if they're not representing their side, as well as they could, it could be removed without costs. Before this language is added. So if you scroll down further Avery. Just keep looking for underlined or struck language. Down here. It's up there for you. So one of the issues is that they weren't getting paid. For their service. So this clarifies that they can get paid for up to 10 minutes a year. And then they can get paid for that. And then they can get paid for that. So this is a minor section that has an appropriation for that later on. With these times, this requires schools to release employees. To serve on the commission. So that's new. If you scroll down further Avery. Yeah. Go down to J here. So also members. This allows. In addition to the five members of each side. They can get paid for that. So that could be appointed. So that's up to two. Ultimate member. Ultimate members for school employees after two. Ultimate members for school employers. And the purpose there obviously is they can be. After needs and somebody drops out. They'll carry on. Just like often jurors would be. Jury. So if you scroll down further. You can see that there's a number of. Appropriations here. Okay. So there's a 17,000 $17,500 appropriation to cover. Per diem and reimbursement for commission members. And then go down further if you would. Strike out. Right here. So last three being struck here. Had required that the. The percentage of the percentage of the percentage. Per each plant. Here be the same for all employees. So same for a gender as for a superintendent. This allows that to be negotiated. So perhaps you'd have a lower share. By a gender, for example, bank less money. As an herds are more highly paid. So it makes the, the premium percentages negotiable. Or before the community. It could not be negotiated. If you go further. If you would. Okay. Yeah. Line three here being struck as the same concept for our pocket. Above was for premiums. And if you go further. Every. Right here. Up a bit. Sorry. Just up to that. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then this allows the commission to negotiate a statewide procedure. For disputes. So that was added. And then the language. On. Line eight. Requires a bit earlier engagement in terms of the, the negotiating process. I mean, I think it's going on further. If you find more. Underline language. Right here. You're very technical changes. During the bargaining last year, the arbitrator allowed people to submit information after they're supposed to. So this clarifies that you can't do that. post-hearing, and then down further requires the big cost estimates included in the last best offers. Then going down further, right here, this requires that the decision by the arbitrator explain in appropriate detail the rationale for selecting the last best offer on the last round. Evidently, the explanation is very minimal, so they want more information. If you keep going, I think that's it actually. Yeah. Yeah, that's it. Questions. This one here has passed the set, but it hasn't been compiled yet. There are a couple of floor amendments on this, I believe, but hasn't been compiled into official version yet. I'm sorry, so we don't have that in our committee now. Well, it's not yet because it has passed the set, actually, but it hasn't been sent over to you yet. Okay. So it just mattered. It hasn't been messaged over. I think so. Okay. I guess, so okay, Representative Conlon, you have a question? No. What happens if we don't pass this this year? What's the, as we're trying to look at the end through the lens of what's a must-pass and what's a would like to pass? Is there something? Is this in the must-pass or sure would be fabulous to pass? Or it could wait. And I know you're supposed to say neutral, but yeah. I think you want to hear from the two sides on that. I do because they'll have you send. Yeah, there is an appropriation here, too, of course. Yeah. So it was sent over with the appropriation in it. Yeah. Okay. It may be one of the questions that we'll have to ask because I'm not quite sure of the answer, but I think they negotiated a two-year. Well, I don't know. Never mind. I think it's more information. Yeah. Serena. And then Larry. I was going to ask the same question about when are people negotiating? Because I would think if it doesn't pass, it could impact negotiations. I'm not sure the timing is for Boston's or I can answer that. Representative Cooper. Yeah, Jim. What about the amendments? Did you say the the amendments? Have they been included in this bill or? Well, each side did not include the amendments. When it was very technical, the two sections, what happened in this bill was I included the whole chapter because the two sides were negotiating during the committee discussion. The one didn't see all the language, but the two sections that did not get amended were still in the bill, but they shouldn't have been because they weren't changed. So those two got struck just as a technical matter on the floor. And then the other one, I can't remember what the other one was. I have to go back and look, it was quite minor, too. Or was that like a major, major change? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Representative Elder. So my feeling on this one is that basically if both sides were at the table, I guess in the Senate committee, so to speak, you know, my understanding is we just had a first year of statewide healthcare bargaining. It went to arbitration. As I read this bill, I think I'm seeing that it's some technical fixes to that. So just regarding Sarita's point about the timing that, again, the timing would be for the next statewide arbitration process, that's a bargaining process for healthcare. So it seems to me that this would be a good one to move just since that statewide bargaining process is new and it seems natural to me that some, you know, some things would pop up after just having done such a large change as to bargain that statewide and that if the Senate has really done enough work on this that it's not coming to us trailing a lot of controversy and it does seem like something might move through what I would want to, you know, have the bill presented to us or something by, you know, to sort of understand the context a little more, but generally I'm supportive of this kind of bill, which seems to me following on the heels of a new change and trying to make some important fixes to, sorry, say that again. So then what you're seeing is that this could, with this unsettled, could have some impact on arbitration that will be coming up upcoming. Yeah, I assume so. It seems that it's probably trying to smooth out the process as it goes primarily. With that said, I imagine that the process could stay in place for another year. So I guess I'm just interested to see is this a bill that everyone's in agreement? These are good fixes versus is it, again, just kind of on all of these, it would be good to sort of have a temperature check of the sense of how hot is this item? And because urgency, if it's really one-sided urgency, I think it will be harder to move quickly on, that's for sure. Thank you, Representative James. Yep, just wanna follow along to what Caleb was saying, which is that if we're gonna move on this, I wanna hear testimony or at least see written testimony from both sides so that we're assured that they both agree that these changes are gonna improve the arbitration process and that this isn't a controversial bill in any way. If everybody agrees this is gonna make the arbitration, the new arbitration process better, let's move it. But I wanna hear that directly. Okay, that's great, this is helpful. Thank you very much. I think we are at a rest point. We have the superintendent, no, we have, we have some groups coming in this afternoon. One is from the Independent Schools Association related to special education schools, and then we will hear from the school boards, the principals, the council special education administrators, the NEA and the superintendent, it's just to get another update, which I'll be looking at a weekly update from them. And in the meantime, Larry, why don't you and I have a chat about these bills to figure out how we wanna organize it going forward for the committee so we can determine what's a must pass, what's a scale of one to five. You want to phone? Yeah, we can check in later, I'll just check in with you.