 Good afternoon, everyone. It's a little after one. This is February 3rd, and Senate education is starting its afternoon of work. We're starting out today with Secretary French. Secretary, it's great to have you with us as usual. Secretary French is going to talk to us a little bit about the governor's proposal for is the governor's childcare proposal. Everyone likely heard that in the budget address and he's going to take us through that. I've then asked him to talk a little bit about this church and state issues related to what we're seeing right now. In our religious schools and vouchers and I'm not articulating it as well as he will, but the short of it is what what rules has the agency adopted. And we'll then hear from Professor teach out. We'll talk a little bit more about some of those church and state issues that we've been reading about and learning about from our constituents. And then later in the afternoon we will jump into our three bills that we have been spending the most time on that being as 16 some more on literacy and the proposals from the sack. I just met with the pro temp for a little while to go over some of our work. And to also inform her as I'll also inform all of you we will on Tuesday be hearing from Jeff Fannon and his group of people and I need to talk to you about this also Mr. Secretary about what they are envisioning for students that might have deficits in post COVID Vermont so that's just an over little overview of where we're at. I now will turn it over to Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me Dan French Secretary of Education. As the chair mentioned, I'll start off speaking a bit about our child care proposal which is usually entitled restructure of CDD. And I shared a PowerPoint genie I don't know if you have that or not, but we can kind of use that we prepared this PowerPoint for joint testimony between my, you know, our folks today and my esteemed colleagues at the chess who are not with me today so it's my best to cover that. Yes, I have made you co host so you can share whatever you'd like. Okay, very good. Thank you. The, and I'll make some comments about the sort of church and state issues, which is a subject of active litigation, very interested in hearing professor teach us observation on that. Essentially named when to get in some of that work so I'm going to be somewhat confined my comments to some general observations, but I did also share a document with the committee that describes some guidance or recommendations best practice that we put out to school districts. So I'll basically use that as the basis of my comments. So if that sounds good, I'll go ahead and share out my screen here. PowerPoint. Can you see that okay. I know it's small. Okay. I apologize one moment. Getting bigger. Wonderful. Thank you. Yeah, so our proposal at this point is is really just a proposal we haven't reduced this to specific statutory language. We acknowledge at the front that this is a very complex topic and a one of which will vital by necessity invite a lot of stakeholder feedback and also feedback from legislators. We intentionally put forward this and the idea that, you know, here from an administrative side here's something we're, we're proposing from basically the theme of what would be from our perspective good government. But really willing and anxious to work with legislative partners and other stakeholders to bring this to a specific some specificity and I think in fairness to this they're there the devil is in some of the details so to speak so there is some work to do in that regard. But I'll, as I mentioned that these are slides that we were jointly prepared for a presentation with my colleagues at HS. I'm going to focus mostly on the agency of education side of that but this will this will give you a sense of what what's involved I think. So, the child development division inside the agency of human services has several functions, one of which is childcare and learning. So what we're proposing to do is to move the, the early care and learning aspects of the CDD division to the agency of education. Our policy and pre K in particular, which is act 166 has resulted in a sort of a bifurcation of administration so the agency of education administers pre K in the public school system, the agency of human services through the CDD division, or through CDD. The public school receives pre K in the private providers of the care providers who take it on pre K as well. And that that has never been well received, particularly by the public school systems who find themselves regulated by two agencies, having to do two sets of fingerprints for staff having to go through to basically inspections of those facilities and so forth. In my tenure as secretary, which is coming up on my third year. This has been challenging to administer internally there have been times when we, we have a regulation if you will that has led to disputes between the two agencies and myself secretary go Bay or Secretary Smith have had to get together to try to figure out how to do this so it's been challenging. And also in our data systems, you might have heard of this thing called state longitudinal data system what we call the SLDS, which is a data warehouse project sponsored by the federal government. The agency of education is essentially the sponsor of that project we, we built on to that to include earlier data, and it's been challenging to create a single data model in earlier than I think the data is a key piece of the policy approach in this area. So at any rate, there's there's some things we've noticed inside a state government, we think that could be improved by bringing the childcare function under the same organizational roof if you will as pre K, and to do that inside the agency of education. This would not this does not mean the public school system taking over early learning and care. It basically brings these teams together under one organizational structure. And I'll say, you know, child development division the term division, I think vary somewhat among different agencies the agency of education is obviously a much smaller organization the agency of human services. We're about 160 employees, human services is about 3500 something like that. And our divisional structure inside the agency we don't have departments we just have divisions our divisions are about 20 to 30 people. So this change would basically necessitate us creating a new division at the agency of education which for for just for discussion purposes I'll label a division of early learning and care. So we would have approximately 30 to 35 people in a new division under new leadership, which I think is key to sort of bring this together as a single team of integrated service from birth to five year olds to kindergarten essentially, which I think is rather intriguing from our standpoint. There are. So, those 30 to 35 people, they are already, where are they now are those we're not just for clarification, we're not talking new staff, this is a track, these are largely bringing over approximately 29 CDD staff to the agency of education. So, there's no, there's nothing happening in terms of like the agency of education having to learn how to do this space we're bringing over that expertise from another agency. The idea here is to just making the point that this would necessitate the creation of a new division, not so much integrating these employees from CDD into an existing agency education because our pre K team is pretty small right now. We're embedded inside of what we call the student supports division, which also includes special education and a few other critical functions. So for us, it's a great way to put emphasis on this critical policy area by now having enough staff and focus to necessitate the formation of a division and the division leaders inside the agency of education are essentially members of my immediate leadership So it elevates this function also to a very high level inside in a prioritization inside the agency of education. The point I make also from the slide is there are elements of CDD that do not come over to the agency of education on this proposal so this is the piece that the agency human services, if we were doing this as joint testimony would speak more directly to. But there's on this slide, for example, the financial assistance assistance program would be as a benefit program housed that Department of Children and Families. So there's some pieces of CDD basically CDD would be dissolved and parts of it would be broken up into different places inside the agency of human services but this this core function of childcare would be brought over to the agency of education. And you know the theory of action here is to have an integrated approach and a more integrated approach, you know, sort of, as you've heard the governor's vision cradle to career. But we also know of all the other research we have out there in this in the education space. There's pretty compelling evidence that suggests that the best investment we can make in the education area is on pre K, and particularly early learning and care if we look at very successful education systems in the world, like Finland. The education system is built on a foundation of really birth birth to five, making all the investment they make in prenatal parents so forth. So that's, as part of seen as an integrated investment of social services of which education is sort of the receiving end of it if you will. But we think there's, if we get very intentional about this and not to harp on the Finnish experience I had the pleasure of going on an education tour of Finland several years ago. And this history is kind of interesting, you know they came, basically started to exist exists as a nation state after World War two for the very first time in their history. And they, you know, their story when they talk about their education system as you know basically at that moment in time they looked around and said you know, we don't have a lot of natural resources we have for us. Our biggest resource are our people. We need to invest very strategically and building the best education system in the world and that's basically what they did very intentionally through like 20 to 30 year period. I would argue Vermont's in a similar place. Arguably, you know we have wonderful natural resources but in the era of declining, you know, our demographic challenges that we face. We cannot afford to have any student not get off to a good start, any, any individual, any Vermont or not get off to a good start. We need every Vermont or to be able to be successful. So this, I think I feel that sort of prioritization, maybe Finland felt as well. So that's that's sort of the theory of action to do that administratively in state government. There are, you know, once again from an administrative standpoint some say efficiencies but also some improvements that are going to be gained. I talked about the sort of bifurcation the administration of Act 166 the pre-k this would now be brought under one roof, we'd be able to eliminate some of that dual regulatory oversight that's been problematic. We have federal funding streams that idea is the Individual Disabilities Education Act basically special ed law. There's some revenues that come down through that program Part B Part C. They're arguably focused on the same issue to help kids get off a good start but currently AHS administers Part B, AOE administers Part C. And the handoff between those two things isn't as smooth as it could have be if it was administered by one agency. This piece on the integrated benefits is the efficiency to be gained at the DCF side on the AHS side by basically now looking at a composite level the benefits that are administered to families. Currently CDD administers a separate benefit program that families might be receiving later on through another benefit program in DCF. So this gives DCF view into a more seamless look at benefits. The data system piece. I'm some of these components are more AHS oriented so if you want to dig more deeply to those I'd recommend bringing AHS in. But the theory is that we, there's some things to be gained administratively this is disruptive certainly. But by putting pieces together and under one administrative leadership team there's some advantages. And I will also say by introduction. You know I don't have firm data on how these services are staff nationally, but it's not uncommon to see them housed, as they are now among two different agencies but it's also equally common to see them brought together under one agency so it's kind of, I wouldn't say 5050 but there's a bit of both going on nationally. And you know I can get into the specifics of how the services breakdown but generally speaking, childcare would be coming over to the agency of education. There's mental health components to CDD that would go to the Department of Mental Health. Aspects as I mentioned benefit administration so forth that would go to the DCF. I'll skip through some of the AHS aspects, but they, they would make a compelling argument for why early childhood mental health should be integrated into the broader understanding of mental health, not be separate in a separate division inside the agency of human services. Similarly, DCF would make an argument as to why benefit administration would be better done under one organizational entity and AHS as opposed to having multiple entities doing that. I guess I'll just end on this slide. But, you know, again, what we're proposing is not to move all of CDD to AOE but a good part of it particularly that function around childcare licensing referral headstart gets into the pre-K administration which is 166 early learning and care and so forth as I mentioned. You know, this more or less concludes sort of my overview of what we're proposing. Once again, the devil's in the details on this. We intentionally knew going into the legislative process that there's a lot of stakeholders that need to be involved in a state employees, legislators. So we're proposing to work with legislative leaders to bring this down to a level of specificity because it is something I think that's fairly complex. We're also not expecting to do this in one year. So we would like to set the train in motion, if you will, and then work on the structural budgetary pieces as a follow on piece of work. When I say budgetary pieces, meaning the state government budget structure. So why don't we end there and I'll take some questions and then we can transition over to religion and schools. Thank you. Committee. Your person. Yeah, thanks, Secretary French. And I guess the one question I have is, did you look at it from both sides of saying like, I think it makes sense to definitely combine it under one roof and one administrative structure. Did the administration look at doing in the reverse of taking the stuff that education is doing and putting in DCF as well as taking the DCF stuff and putting in it and why did you decide the one way you decided. Yeah, it's a great question. I think they're, I will say this is not a new topic. It's been on the table since I started as Secretary at least I think my predecessor, Rebecca Holcomb and Secretary go Bay. The year I think probably 2017 somewhere in that timeframe 2016 2017 had conducted a statewide tour. Sort of a listing town hall if you will about how to address issues around 166 how was 166 being implemented how is it going. And certainly, as I mentioned, the public schools were definitely almost uniformly critical of the dual agency oversight. But the result of that sort of visitation around the state was that this is just sort of my editorial comment that the Secretary's basically concluded that it was it's hard to get agreement on this area so therefore we should divorce and that's what I used to call the divorce bill. So there was a bill introduced in 2018 or 2019, Senator Bruce brought forward to divorce the sense of break it apart. And that was sort of my initiation of this policy space as Secretary, because I, you know, certainly focused on act 46 at that moment. But I observed that is problematic multiple agencies involved implementing a single program so I thought the divorce was a useful construct. I was very interested at that time looking at fixing 166 and then figuring out how to staff it inside a state government second. I've subsequently come around to think it's hard to get better policy if we don't have coherence inside a state government. So we've been working on this for a bit I guess my long winded response. I think there's been a natural impetus to kind of think about pulling things from a chess and putting them into other agencies just because a chess is so large. This is just my editorial observation that somebody doesn't work inside of a chess. But also the agency of education has started to take on some of the technical sort of back office functions in this area so we once again we own the data warehouse. We've been sort of we run the bulk of special education. So there are some programmatic pieces that sort of put the momentum on our side as well and the fact that we're smaller. And many of the functions that are pre K makes sense if they're attached to the rest of the education process. Thank you. Thank you. And we also are looking at this in Senate health and welfare at least we've taken a quick look at it. I guess the question that I have is did you consider at all having a universal pre K. And then building special ed and moving some of the special ed issues into education rather than parent child centers home visiting and some of the we've done a lot of work over the past few years. So integrating these systems including CIS. And now it feels like all that work is being pulled apart. So, did you consider looking at universal pre K. And then the special ed integration that I think is always been an issue. And this the topic I appreciate the question universal pre K for me sort of falls into that conversation about what is the policy. My initial disposition towards this was to let's talk about the policy and then figure out how to structure the state government response as a secondary approach. And then sort of come around to that as we've had difficulty articulating reform to 166. In particular is that we're working across agency boundaries and there's just a lot of effort and energy focused on just convening that conversation and state government on how to how to create better policy. I think, you know, the thinking here is to create a structure that is set up by definition to be integrated into have also organizational capacity, all the resources focused on the policy, and then to advance policy as a secondary outcome of that. But right now, inside the agency of education. We have a team of five people essentially that works on pre K. We have a director of pre K. But we don't have adequate policy staff to really get into advancing a larger policy on pre K. Essentially, our staff are solely focused on administering act 166 as it is. So, once again, creating a division inside the agency and a division director that's going to be focused on early learning and care with a robust staff of approximately 35 people gives this policy area some some horsepower so to speak that allows that will allow us to engage more proactively on policy development. So, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I was going to pivot to talk about special education, but I'll stop. No, go ahead, please still. Yeah, I don't. I'm not I don't see this necessarily is taking things apart. I know there's been a lot of good work that's going on. I will say, I think the bulk of special ed obviously happens I think in the agency of education I mean that's, we take over pretty clearly after grade three or age three, and then certainly up to age 22 so the bulk of it is inside the agency of special education so it makes sense to me sort of naturally that we would put it all under one roof as to having a slice of it someplace else but I understand there's a lot of integration that's already occurred. I, my intention would be to this this organizational structure would be a catalyst for further integration not something that would be disruptive in the work that's already occurred. There may remain to be seen so we'll have to, there are a lot of details there and a lot of questions to be asked, obviously, when I see different programs being moved to the Department of Health or to somewhere else, and not fully integrated it is a concern it's not a concern so much from the administrative side because that what you're suggesting poses administrative efficiencies, but it does suggest that there may be some confusion on the part of families and children, and what the, what the model looks for the kids who are zero to three and maybe even zero to five so just. I think there would be a disruption obviously this is a significant change. No, no, and I don't mean just in the change process I mean, once it's accomplished to we, we see in so much disservice to people sometimes when we try to make administrative efficiencies and, as you were talking about Finland, for example, the amount of resources that are put into the work that Finland does on after school or early childcare is significant. So it seems to me that one consideration might be simply to increase the resources available to your agency to cover the needs that are currently there. Yeah, I'm getting a feeling that we're going to start spreading ourselves even thinner than we are. Yeah, that's just my initial. Yeah, no, I think he's a great great conversation I would you know I would just make a general observation again that there's from a national perspective there's no right way to do this, you know so there's one way that everyone's realized is the best way and all states are administering idea be idea see special education and so forth. Virtually all states have some commitment to pre K. So there's there's no one right model. I think what we're talking about is what's the best potential model for us as a state. And I think we do have to be cognizant of the resources we do do have based on the scale at which we operate which is you know from the public education system, 75,000 students. So we have to keep that in mind. I think it's a it's a time it's a conversation that we should have a focused conversation about I would, I agree to Finland's also, you know, from a financial point put the prioritization on making the investments but they also have straightened out a lot of their infrastructure it's it's essentially a seamless integration from their perspective on doing that so the to go hand in hand from my perspective it's not just a question of putting resources. I would honestly guarantee you if you were to give me additional resources in this regard I couldn't guarantee you that we'd have the policy outcomes that you desired, because there's a lot of internal. I would say tension between the apparatus and how we have the services get delivered and so it's, I think it's it's got a lot of potential if we try to put these together under one roof. Thanks, give a follow up. No, I'm okay. I'm good. Thank you. Okay, Senator Hooker. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Secretary French when you talk about 75,000 students. That includes what ages from zero. That's K through 12 students in our public education system. How many children. Are we servicing from zero to three. I don't I don't have a solid handle on those numbers because it's not an area have direct oversight over. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, I guess my only question right now is, it doesn't sound like there's anything for us to do. It sounds like this was a, again, a good overview of what the administration is thinking about, and you'll continue just to be in touch with us as you move forward and if there are certain policy decisions that you'll need us to consider along the way. Is that accurate? Yeah, no, I appreciate the opportunity to come and give an overview to date. This, this presentation has been provided. I think to a joint meeting of the house human services committee and the house education committee. We haven't had a chance to sort of that was last week. I don't think we've had a chance to sort of recoup inside a state government, but we'll be reaching out. And if there's interest in pursuing this with folks. Great. Thank you so much. And the other thing, just so you know, knowing how busy your schedule is, I can imagine you are checking our agenda every day, but Ali Richards is coming in tomorrow. And she is going to sort of give, let's go create kids, there's sort of overview of what direction they're heading in, what they would like to do. And I also asked her just to weigh in on it weigh in on this. We've had a great conversation. I mean, they're, to their credit, they've put together a very solid plan, which, which I appreciate. It is, it's just to make the observation. It's been an interesting policy space for me. This is an area where there's broad agreement that pre K investment should be made in early learning and care across the political spectrum across different advocacy groups. On the other hand, it's exceedingly challenging to get consensus on how to do it, you know, so everyone's hearts in the right spot for the mechanics of it are tricky. Thank you. Well, now on to an easier topic. I'm wondering if you would, as we start to look at this issue, just sort of bring us back if you're comfortable doing so. Where things are how things got started and the agency overall, what you're doing to respond. Yeah, it's a great way to frame it. I've got about 15 more minutes left. So I'm going to, you know, just, just let you know. There's been, and I'm intimidated somewhat by professor teach up being here who I only know through reputation, but I will, I'll just make my sort of layman's observations and also a secretary I'm not an attorney. And there's been a national effort to look at these issues and in particular, the Trinity Lutheran decision US Supreme Court a few years ago in Missouri. And there's been more or less a sort of a change in how the Supreme Court's looking at these issues and there was sort of a national effort to look at state constitutions and the provisions the state and how they might apply to these, these questions of separation of church and state. Vermont is a state that has such provisions and what we call the compelled support clause. So there's been active litigation around the country is part of sort of this national change and disposition towards these issues. We've been almost a caught up in that. So, I'm a name it lit again in two cases right now. I'm dual enrollment, if you're familiar with our dual enrollment program. We basically provide two courses for free for students and we've, we have not allowed students to attend, let's say religious high schools to participate in that. So there was a case brought forth on that issue. And the other case has to do with tuitioning and this is the one I'll speak more directly to, I did send your committee sort of a description of a guidance document I won't put it on the screen but you have that sort of for your background reading. The, the tuitioning system in Vermont is based on, you know, once again the states ultimately responsible for the education students per our Constitution and that's been sort of agreed on through the Brigham decision and most recently I think in fact 46 and the litigation around that. The state delegates authority to local school districts on how to educate students and districts basically have two modes or means by which they can do that one is they either operate schools or two they provide tuition for students to be educated in in some other school. And those other schools are have to have some approval status through the state, they have to be approved to receive public tuition dollars. So when we get into the status argument, you know, how, how are these schools approved or not. We've had some litigation in Vermont, starting with the Manchester decision, and then more recently in the Chittenden decision which I still think is 1999, but still fairly recent and around this issue of to what extent religious schools can receive tuition and they're having to get sort of has kind of what I say but I think basically folks would agree that the Vermont Supreme Court has decided that religious schools can receive public tuition dollars provided there are adequate safeguards to ensure that the funds that are being used for are not also involved with religious activities that the religious school might be directly engaged in. So that's sort of the rub of it. It's not about in Vermont it's not about whether religious schools can receive tuition yes or no because essentially that's been decided yes they may. But with school districts who make those decisions have to ensure the funds are being used properly. And that's where we get into the document that we I shared with you that we recently published on the slide. We can't basically from a state perspective or the agency's perspective. Decide whether religious schools are should receive tuition or not that's been decided by the Vermont Supreme Court. The answer is yes. The question is how does school districts go about ensuring there are safeguards on how those dollars get used that we provide some recommendations on how they might do that. But this is a topic of active consideration by the courts literally this week. So it's a dynamic situation to say always. Thank you. Questions for Secretary French before we hear from Professor teach out. Thank you Mr. Secretary. Thanks for coming in feel free I know you might have a few moments we are actually before I turn it over to Professor teach out I wonder if we might just take a quick two minute break I just need to check in down the hall and I apologize for that and we'll just take an early stretch if you don't mind professor just for two minutes and then we'll be right back. Okay, I'll see if I can pull up a document. So is that what you were hoping for. I'm trying to I think I've got it coming. Mr chair. Here we know that's just the appendix unfortunately. So we go without it, which the problem is now I have to find my own testimony I'll be right with you. Okay. And senators, please know if you haven't found it is on our webpage under today's date, and then that's not it. Okay. I can share it from here if you want. If somebody or if somebody could share it from there that would be great because I, I am having it difficulty finding it on my own laptop. If you don't mind doing that that would be a big help. There we go. Ken, is that visible now. It is I'm just going to ask genie to enlarge enlarge it. And genie, when I ask, maybe we'll scroll down a little bit so I can refer to specific points I make. My name is Peter. I'm just going to hold on one second, Professor. Jeannie, can it is it possible to make it larger. It's full on my screen. I don't know how else. I'll just follow along on their, their iPads before you start I just want to pause for just a moment and just recognize that this can be is a sensitive topic in the United States in this state, sometimes even with one another. So what I appreciate and I know we all do is just a respectful thoughtful dialogue around this topic that, you know, again can be can be sensitive so with that professor. Thanks for being with us. Appreciate it and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My name is Peter teach out. I'm a professor of constitutional law and First Amendment law at Vermont law school. In my areas of interest are United States and Vermont constitutional law and history. I've published a number of articles in those fields, although not in this specific field. I've testified before other committees and Senate Education Committee on previous occasions on other issues involving constitutional dimensions of legislation being considered by various committees up there. I hope in my testimony today which I'm going to try to keep as brief as possible I can be helpful. I'm going to share with you just a few ideas. I want to apologize in advance for my written testimony it was, it's a rush job, but I thought it'd be more helpful to have something in writing than nothing at all in writing to refer to. I'm going to share with you my own suggestions my views, but I'm very much open to question and criticism and push back, because this is an area that is a potential landmine in terms of constitutional issues I my whole effort I was, by the way I was born and raised in Vermont, went to the Union School in Montpellier and Montpellier High School, and very much bring to, I guess that teaching and thinking about constitutional law and I would call a Vermont sensibility so so my instinct here, just to give a perspective is to see, is there some way to bring Vermont's tuition reimbursement policy, which Secretary of French just described into compliance with the US Supreme Court's decision in the espinoza case, without violating the support clause in article three of chapter one of the Vermont Constitution. I have in preparation and in other earlier discussions I've read District Court Judge Rice's decision that was handed down on January 7 and a H versus French. I've read the emergency injunction that was issued by Circuit Judge Manashi, in that same case, just a couple weeks ago on January 22. I am familiar with the best practices memorandum that Secretary French referred to that was issued by the Agency of Education on January 15. I am impressed by that document and generally agree with the approach recommended there with a couple of concerns about practical implementation with respect to the recommendations. So consistent with that background, and just as a sensible stop gap measure. My suggestion, I suggest that school districts that are subject to the emergency injunction that was issued by the Circuit Court adopt and announce the following policy. It's, here's here it is, it's the policy of this school district to authorize payment of monthly requests for reimbursement of tuition from all independent schools, regardless of religious status or tuition. Upon receipt of certification that none of the tuition for which reimbursement is requested has been or will be used to support religious instruction, worship, other religious activity, or the propagation of religious views. Now, Jeannie, could you scroll down just a little bit at this point. Okay, there we go. I want to stress that if this policy were to be adopted by school districts. It should apply to request for tuition reimbursement from all participating independent schools and not just those that somehow have religious affiliations it's really important that it be applied neutrally and equally and uniformly across the board. So this is a pretty simple as I would call it Vermont solution but I think it does the work at least as a stop gap measure. So why does it do so. It's in compliance with judge rice's decision and the age versus French case and with judge Manashi's emergency injunction. Since there would no longer be discrimination quote based solely on religious status. It would be consistent with the US Supreme Court's ruling in the espinoza case for the same reason. Chief Justice Roberts throughout the majority opinion in that case says the problem in this case that we are dealing with is discrimination against religious institutions or religious persons based simply or solely on religious status. We cannot decide whether or not there can be some restrictions on the religious use of government aid or money we're just not deciding that. So, this proposal also is consistent with the court's approval and earlier cases of the use by government of what I call the certification mechanism notices pretty simple. The application upon certification that none of the tuition that you're requesting has been or will be used for religious purposes. And I'm going to elaborate on that just in just a moment. But this is an approach that has been approved by the courts in earlier cases. There's an Agostini case involving special education in religious schools and Mitchell versus Helms which involve providing educational materials and equipment to both non religious and religious schools. As those cases demonstrate it's a simple and practical and workable approach. And then next paragraph most importantly for school districts in Vermont, it's consistent with the compelled support clause in article three of chapter one of the Vermont Constitution and the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in the Chittenden case. It provides the court has said a constitutionally sufficient safeguard to ensure that Vermont taxpayer dollars will not be used to support religious instruction or worship, or the propagation of religious views with which taxpayers may fundamentally disagree. In the appendix to my written testimony. I have laid out the basic history background original understanding of article three in the Vermont Constitution and in particular the original understanding of the compelled support clause. And I think if you're interested in history will find it very interesting. It's also relevant I think to what we're dealing with here. We lost their professor. It looks like we've lost him all together. Let's just give him a minute to make his way back. There you are. There I'm sorry I got cut off momentarily. I don't know where I got cut off but it's not terribly important I think you can get a sense of where I'm going I suggested sort of a very simple approach. To dealing with this problem at least in the short term. I just wanted to say a word that the court, the United States Supreme Court in earlier cases has approved this certification mechanism as a way of providing safeguards against government funds to aid being used to support religious instruction and worship and I quote from that opinion in my written testimony from a concurring opinion written by Justice O'Connor concurred in my Justice Breyer, which was essential to the court's to uphold a particular program providing educational materials and instructional equipment to both private secular and private religious schools. And in that quotation. Justice O'Connor writes the safeguards employed by the program are quote constitutionally sufficient. And what they did is both the federal government required that the aid provided not be used for religious worship or purposes or instruction, and the states required signed assurance that the government aid would not be used for religious purposes or instruction. I think they put it the other way around would only be used for secular uses and purposes but with the same thrust. The mechanism is available it has been approved in other cases. It kind of does the work and does it in a very simple and straightforward and practical way. I want to make just one other general point other than providing you with that historical material about article three where it came from the original understanding of what it meant. I believe that one of the key differences between the Montana constitutional provision, which was challenged in the espinoza case. And the compelled support clause in the Vermont Constitution is the Montana provision was based on replicated what was called a blame amendment, blame amendment never adopted at the federal level but lots of states adopted blame amendments. And the problem with with with those provisions the court said is they were intended quite specifically to discriminate against Catholics. The Vermont compelled support clause had no such purpose was adopted a very different point in time. Its purpose was really to protect what the back then the council of censors called the right of conscience. And it is the right that each of us have to be sure that our taxpayer monies will not be used to support the propagation of religious views, with which we fundamentally disagree. Now, I think the committee may have seen a very helpful PowerPoint developed by Jim de Maris for the legislative council that gets into the weeds a lot more than I do here, but I just wanted to share with the committee hey look. It's really important right at this point in time for the local school districts that are affected to make clear that their policy now is not to discriminate based with respect to tuition reimbursement with respect to the religious status of the requesting reimbursement, but still at the same time, ensure that in doing so you don't violate the compelled support clause of the Vermont Constitution by providing taxpayer support to for for the purpose of religious instruction and worship. So that's the basic thrust of my testimony at this point lots of complications but that is the basic trust. If I may, I just want to before we start questions I just want to back up just so everyone knows we're at this again. We're talking about tuitioning districts is that accurate districts that are tuitioning that have the ability to tuition out. Please yes. So, the record, Jim de Maris console that is true that this will apply to tuition districts, however, operating districts on a one off basis can approve a student to be tuition out of the operating district to another school. So it also could apply there as well. It would apply where Jim. So, if, if, if for tuition districts for sure. A school that operates, for example, high school, if the parent of the high school students says hey, the school doesn't offer programs that I want my child to have. If you go over there at this other school, then the school district can to wish out that one student to the other school. Okay, can't, can't apply the operating districts as well as to tuition districts but in the main, it's about tuition districts. Played it so that's helpful. I'm wondering if you would start by helping us. How would you define religious purposes. In other words, you know if you think about how one teaches science, what they teach what an afternoon after school program might involve teach and support. How, how would you define that. Well, that is a problem and I want to recognize it is a problem. Under my approach you would leave it up to the school, the school, the independent school in this case, either religious school or not a school to simply say, we're not using this money for. We could change that language from religious purpose for purposes of religious instruction, or worse. Propagation of religious views. So you could get rid of the word purpose, except saying for purposes of. And, and then under the certification process it's not great but it, but it's, it's very simple you would leave it to the independent school to certify. You're not using your tuition money for purposes of religious instruction, worship, or the propagation of religious views that requires a certain amount of trust that that schools will be operating in good faith. But all I can say is in Mitchell versus Helms. The district found that that was in a sufficient safeguard against against abuse. Now if abuse comes to the attention of the public or the authorities or the school district. I think maybe we ought to build in somewhere into the system some grounds for saying you were going to lose your status as an approved school. But that's sort of secondary to the basic approach. Sorry to interrupt but I do know. Others have questions and I just want to get some of those out there. Senator and you have you had your hand up. You do not Senator Hooker. I think this is pretty basic and maybe it doesn't even apply but are those schools that are receiving funds required to have separate accounts for that money, so that it can be assured that money's not being used for religious purposes. That's a really good question. The answer is right now no because they have been automatically denied until now, their ability to apply for tuition reimbursement, simply because of their religious status. So we're moving into another word. Now, the best practices document that was promulgated by the agency of education suggests that might be three sort of categories of schools that would be applying for tuition. There are schools that would say, we don't use tuition money for religious instruction or worship at all. Or two, to the extent we have components of religious instruction and worship at our school, those programs are completely separate from the basic secular program. I don't know if that's true for any school but that at least would be a second category. The problematic categories, the third one, where you say, well, okay, and this is your question, Senator Hooker, how do you as a sort of an accounting matter separate out those components that involve religious instruction, or worship, especially at a school that promotes itself as. Being pervasively religious throughout the entire program that is our entire and in some ways that's the attraction of the school because sort of the entire program involves help me out with the right word here. Well, just a whole sort of soup to nuts experience around with regard to religion, there are some that some schools that might do that and that's there. That is like there's, if you will. So, and I think that's a that's the idea is maybe the agency of education could sort of set up an accounting system. Well you can't include teachers that you would want to cover under a ministerial exception that is, that's a special tech category or you might want to exclude from eligibility certain particular programs in the program, but it just seems to me you get into incredible levels of complexity I would hate to sort of drop a laundry list of those courses that qualify those aspects of the program that qualify or those that don't. So much simpler simply to say hey look, we aren't maybe requesting the full load of tuition reimbursement, but we do guarantee you that the tuition reimbursement we're requesting has not been and will not be used for purposes of religious instruction but it's an incredible problem once you if you try to developing an elaborate accounting system for figuring out what qualifies or doesn't qualify Jim Jim de Merris and I have talked about that. So I invite you if you'd rather approach it that way but I was trying to make it as simple as possible. Other questions. Senator minds. I guess it's more of a comment but it is also a question that, regardless of what we do, and regardless of what policy a school might be putting in place, and then a testing to it could, it will, it could still be tested in the courts. So, it's, it's getting our feet wet, and then hoping for the best. Even that's putting it optimistically. Look, look, I said, what's really important because of the court injunction that is hanging over those school districts heads right now that the school districts make it clear that we're no longer going to deny you tuition reimbursement solely because of the religious status. We're going to give you a chance to apply. Okay. And that is, as I think we can say just kicking the can down the road. And why I think even that's optimistic is because running through Chief Justice Roberts opinion in the espinoza case. He constantly says we don't have to decide today, whether a more carefully tailored restriction on the use of government funds, might or might not survive constitutional challenge. We don't have to decide that today, because the Montana prohibition basically prohibits access to this government aid solely based on the religious status. So, so we can say, hey, let's, let's avoid that. The court doesn't rule doesn't say anything however definitively what if the prohibition really is simply, we can't provide you with tuition funds if those tuition funds are going to support religious instruction or worship. Now we have to deal in Vermont with the fact of Vermont Constitution prohibits the use of government funds for purposes of religious instruction and worship. That's the Chittenden decision by the court back in the late 90s. So it's sort of like we're trying to sail between the silla of violating the federal Constitution and the Charybdis of violating the Vermont Constitution. And the way to do that at least as a stop gap measure is to simply say hey look you're eligible, you just certify that you're not going to use those funds for purposes of religious instruction or worship, and you can and we'll provide those funds on the same terms we do to any independent school. Constitutionally okay. Practically simple, but it's going to be challenged. So I concerned that my question might be entirely germane to this discussion but it's in the ballpark and it has to do with something we've taken testimony on which is the notion of these tuition for university programs and direct versus indirect support. I don't know if that's falling squarely here but I think chair campion made a point that if a religious school is going to offset its curriculum and not offer say advanced math, thus benefiting by not having to stand that program up and then use the program that the council offers to allow those students to attend the University of Vermont using state dollars to that tuition thing. Is that not part of this broader discussion about religiousness and if it is I'd love to know what constitutes direct support and what is indirect support that we might need to be aware of or condition on certification process. Well, Senator Chinden. I probably am not familiar enough with exactly what you're talking about. It seems to me it would be germane, if in fact the state of Vermont is providing state aid to colleges in Vermont to offer courses that involve not introduction to religion, but religious instruction and involve religious worship that the same problem under the do enrollment program my understanding of the way that program works is that we reimburse colleges including religious colleges for providing do enrollment. We're not providing that money directly to say rice, or if Mount St. Joseph or something like we're not providing that a directly to the religious high school that the student is attending we're providing rather the reimbursement to the university. So that I if that means indirect rather than direct, then that seems to me to be okay. Jack you and I had this, I wouldn't say disagreement, but conversation briefly a few years ago, where, when the school enrollment topic came up, and the point being was, if a religious institution decides to, as Senator Chinden said, say we are going to fire the religious teacher. And all of your history classes are now at CCV that therefore freeze up dollars that indirectly could pay off sexual abuse law case lawsuit it could these these dollars could now be free to support the minister or all those kinds of things and I think what you said to me at the time was, it needs to happen in order for that kind of to be to be figured out if you will. So, I remember that conversation, Senator champion. The explanation is there are two kinds of diversion that we worry about. One is where the institution uses government aid to directly support religious instruction worship, something like that. We worry that those funds will be used, and that is prohibited by the Vermont Constitution. There's another kind of divertibility that I think we were talking about which is that if we free up, for example, the resources that rice has to teach courses like history, or math or science, by funding those courses that will free up resources to teach the religion courses. All I can say is the court has addressed that second kind of divertibility where the actual money is going to secular subjects, but that frees up the resources of the religious institution to devote them to religious instruction. The Supreme Court is pretty much rule that out as a basis for objection. I don't know if that makes good sense. I don't know if I agree with it, but I can tell you that the Supreme Court has basically said we don't worry about that kind of divertibility from a constitutional standpoint. I believe that was our conversation. January. Right. That was our January of 1918. Testament conversation was more recent than that. It could be. Okay. Professor, I'm wondering what are the chances of, you know, five years from now, we are having lawsuits around my child was not taught what might be settled science in the United States as it relates to evolution. My child was subjected to anti LGBTQ posters and schools into schools that were funding with public dollars. My child, there's a, you know, a club or activity that is most people would consider to be religious and my tax dollars are supporting that and I have concerns. I mean, it sounds to me that, that we are, we no longer have a, what I grew up with in a way, having had a grandfather that was a judge and talking about this. There was a kind of a dark line there with separation of church and state it seems like this gray area is it could could cause additional court cases. Absolutely. I can't remember I think it might have been secretary French who said that the Supreme Court has seems to have been moving the goal post in this area, increasingly in the direction of saying anytime you discriminate with respect to the provision of government benefits. Yeah, even with respect to the use of those benefits against religious uses or on the basis of religious status. That's going to violate the free exercise clause of the concert so so the goal post is moving, but your, your question. Senator champion raised it. Another point that I would like to make with the committee. That is if you read the best practices. The recommendation of the agency of education. They don't just focus entirely on, you know, religious purposes are not religious. They also say that to be approved you need to comply fully with Vermont's anti discrimination laws, for example, I think it's extremely important. Good point. I mean, I think two things are important one that we have a uniform state policy. What I've suggested is, hey look, let's just let those districts that are under the gun, make a policy statement, but we need a uniform policy and the uniform policy ought to include generally the requirements for being an approved independent school, and that includes full compliance for example with the state's anti discrimination laws. And at least at this point unless you want to violate the compelled support clause in the Vermont Constitution, a certification requirement that you're not going to use those funds for purposes of religious instruction or worship. So, yeah. Other questions. Senator Hooker. So, Professor teacher, I want to go back to the concept of, you know, the curriculum say at a school that is permeated by the beliefs of a certain religion, would that disqualify a school from getting tuition, if their mission statement stated that their instruction and their existence was steeped in a particular religion. So, I'm going to give you a double answer to that, Senator Hooker. In the Chittenden School District case, just as do the writing for the majority say hey look, we've never completely prohibited government aid to religious independent schools. We have approved providing them with books. We have approved providing them with transportation public trans transportation. So, the part of the answer is that school districts could still without any trouble at all still be entitled to receive that kind of government support. But I think a school that had a pervasively religious mission with religion pervading every aspect of the instructional program simply could not certify that the tuition money was not going to be used for purposes of religious instruction and worship. They simply couldn't do the certification. Now, I'm representing the plaintiffs in this case. I challenge that that violates the free exercise but it doesn't violate the free exercise clause at this point. So, we're trying to buy a little bit of time until we can think I want to make one, excuse me, I'm for interrupting myself. I want to make one other point. So, once the court were to find that even prohibiting government aid for purposes of providing religious instruction and worship violated the free exercise clause that would trigger something called a strict scrutiny standard or review. Vermont Constitution has in this compelled support clause. The constitutional right that is probably as important as the right of free exercise in some ways it's just another way of saying that it's the right of conscience. The right not to be required to support the propagation of religious views, with which you fundamentally disagree if you read that historical appendix. You will see that the council of censors way back in the early 1800s, very much concerned with the problem of requiring people to support with their tax dollars the propagation of religious views with which they fundamentally disagree. That's why we haven't had taxpayer support of public school education since that time. You will follow up senator. Mr. Demeray. Right about the conversation about making these religious schools, subject to all anti discrimination laws. So, my understanding is that these schools are places of public accommodation, and therefore they will be subject to the international laws that apply that any place of public accommodation will be a school, a restaurant. Any place of a public accommodation, however, there are constitutional exceptions for religious organizations, employment laws. So, there's an extra exception which says that for certain positions. You want to be under this rule exception, which is a very big concept. If you're employed by the school, you don't have the same rights as the employee to do the school for discrimination. I think, I think the conversation around making the school subject to all of us provides permission couldn't be done in that category, because there's a constitutional issue you're running up against there that protects the schools in that way. So, so Jim, you're absolutely right. For example, a school that whose religious views were opposed to same sex marriage can fire a teacher, if they find out the teacher in fact has got a same sex marriage because it conflict conflict at least a teacher who is responsible in part for teaching some course that involves perpetuation of the faith, whatever they can fire, not covered by anti-discrimination laws. But you tell the independent school, you want to be free from application of the states anti-discrimination laws, you're perfectly free to do that. And the consequence is, you're no longer going to be in approved school for purposes of our tuition reimbursement program. What about that? I just wonder whether that would be a different form of discrimination based on stats. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, yeah. That would be that would be one approach, at least in the short term likely to be challenged, but you would simply say you can choose if you wanted, if you don't want to comply with our states anti-discrimination laws, then you no longer eligible for applying for tuition reimbursement as one of the states approved I don't know why the approval system, in fact, doesn't build that in, but you might, the reason might be because that would be contrary to the ministerial exception. Well, you know, jurisprudence. So we're trying to do the best you can figure out how else to do it. I have suggested one way to respond at least in the short term. There are no guarantees, first of all, that it won't be challenged and to that the court won't eventually strike down that approach, but at least at the present time, it would be perfectly consistent with both Supreme Court jurisprudence and Vermont State constitutional jurisprudence. Yes, has the case been appealed. I'm sorry. Not knowing this as the case been appealed. Which the eight, the French case, the French case. Yeah, there was a decision by judge right federal district court judge Rice on January 7. It wasn't appealed. It was appealed on an emergency basis, and one circuit court judge issued an emergency injunction. My understanding was either this week or next week there might be a panel of circuit judges that would look at the same question. But even then the injunction simply says you've got to stop discriminating on the basis of religious status that's all it says. It doesn't say anything that it doesn't say you can't stop limiting the use of funds, if those funds are going to be used for religious instruction purposes. Okay, other questions. So, you know, please. People didn't realize you are now qualified to get one credit and constitutional law or word document to me and I'll sign it. Professor teach out. Thank you very much. Very helpful as usual. Well, thank you for the opportunity I feel that kind of rushed a little bit and there's a lot that needs to be thought over but I appreciate the opportunity and if I can be of any help in the future just let me know okay. And it was terrific and again very helpful and we're glad and grateful that you're on the other line to help us navigate these kinds of issues. So, and Professor, how are you related to Sarah teach out. Second cousin once removed. We're all related. Before, before I leave, Senator Chittenden and I were getting into a teta-teta over who had more ancient roots in Vermont. So hey, Fred Storten, when Champlain came down from Canada to discover the lake that bears his name. Yeah, he found a white man and to St. Francis Indians on one of the islands. And that white man's name. This is white privilege. We were summer people but that white man's name was teach out. Long before Tom Chittenden was even a spark in anybody's eye. You win. Gotta keep that that new guy modest absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. We may have you back in again just to talk about your ancestors of changing. I'm sorry, taking up the committee's time. Thank you. Bye bye. And thank you. Jim, did you have any other final comments? It sounds to me that that this committee and I'll talk to Senator Sears to see how he wants to handle this may need to take some some kind of action. So it seems to me there are, if there's actually to be taken. It seems to me to pass my view. One is by you as a job assembly. And one could be authentically by the agency education, education directing school districts to do what Professor teacher says which is to have them respond in this way. So it's really, you don't have to get actually because it's with the school district that needs to respond, and they clear that they will pay tuition if they get certification. You can direct that or the agency could direct that so it's, I think they're to pass. So the agency or the agency could just take it up on their own. Yeah, what we could we would need to act. You could act directly and say, you could direct the agency, you get your school districts directly. You know, you can do either or you could just ask the agency to direct school districts. And Jim, before we sort of discuss this for just a few minutes, is there a way, I mean, basically we're getting at this, we're reaching the same goal. This committee would have having the agency directed would allow them and their expertise to to work on it. And then I mean, basically through rulemaking. Correct. Well, yeah, it depends how far you go because if you do the certification alone. I think you just direct the agency to use actually direct direct to school districts. You have to go to the agency to start school districts to require the certification. Yeah. But if you want to do that in combination with saying that the schools have to comply with all the conventional laws. And then I think you have to take action to directly the statute for the agency to update its approval regs for independent schools to include that as a requirement. The regulations are very around approved in the schools. I haven't reviewed them for this but I think they might have to need them after add a condition, the school grease to be approved that will comply with all international laws. All anti discrimination laws. Yeah. So it's meant which way you want to go on that point though on, if you want to go there. So it will be challenged for sure. I think in court, if you want to see the safest approach in terms of something that will be more robust in court. I think you just do the certification and just leave it there. If you want to go further and require them to comply with the anti discrimination laws. So it's a super constitutional issue that is challengeable. So it's a choice to be made better. And those, if we were to move forward with the anti discrimination law piece, would that be done by the state board. That would be done. Either you could direct the shape or we could do it for yourselves. Right. Okay. So if we have thoughts or preferences at this point, I think there might be, we may need to take a little more testimony center person. My first question would be what the agency is thinking of doing because if there are going to get to do it, then we don't need to do it. If we're happy with the direction that they say, yeah, this is the way we're going to, we're going to require this certification of all the schools. Then that's kind of a done deal. I, I like the idea of requiring the all schools following the non-discrimination discrimination. People certainly have the agency back in to get a sense of what they're going to do. Others looking at both these paths or people wanting to do the certification only or both center lines. I'm sorry I didn't see. My question is a, is it is a step back to, it's for Jim, do you, do you think that not having legislative action and legislative intent or a new, a new request of AOE, legislatively or perhaps through resolution or letter that does that in any way build a stronger case going forward or just having the, you know, that that's the question I guess for me. I'm not sure if I can answer that question. It's a very good question. We see at the record before the courts who issued judgment so far. And the factual record they've seen is that schools, districts and AOE has been saying, we can't give you public tuition because you are able to go to school. So despite the use thing, the statements may have been about staffs. And that's what's killed them in court. Is it stronger coming from the agency or from the state? I think as long as there's evidence on record that it's based on use, not staffs, that's a really good thing. Whether it's more powerful coming from the state or the agency, I'm not sure. And as in the states, I got a bit more power behind it. So maybe that would be a better way of approaching it, but I can't. I can't guarantee that. I'm not sure. Senator Hooker, any thoughts? I know, I know. Well, I did have a thought about when Jim, you said that if, if we did more than the certification it would open us up to more lawsuits, more vulnerability. Can you just explain that I guess? I mean, I'm looking first at Senator Perchlich's thoughts that he'd like to have the anti-discrimination language in there. And then I was thinking of Professor Teachouts thoughts about putting some kind of teeth into this certification with some kind of consequence if you were found to be non-compliant. Yeah. So let's go through the two, two constitutional claims that could be made. Okay. The first constitutional claim is if you just do certification. And certification, of course, is based on use, not staffs. That could be challenged because the Supreme Court left it open as to whether they're going to honor that distinction going forward. So it's not clear to me that if you do this, it will survive a court challenge eventually at the Supreme Court level. Because the court might just say we don't care if it's use-based or staff-based, it's still discrimination and you can't do it. That's not what the court is today. So it's a bit of a projection. But that's the type of challenge you might see on the certification. But if you do the certification thing, it gives you at least a better position to be in to argue with in that case because today on the record it's based on staffs and that's what the courts are finding to be inappropriate. So if you certification, there is a constitutional argument still because the Supreme Court seems a bit unfilled on that point. When you do, when you acquire compliance with all anti-deprivation laws, including labor laws, you're opening a separate constitutional inquiry. And that is, there is by the Supreme Court decisions that say that certain members of staff at religious schools who basically teach or minister, teach education or have a ministerial function, the unemployment laws, the protections don't apply to them. So the example given by Professor T-Shot is if you are gay or transgender and they find that out at your school, if you're in a ministerial position, you can be fired for that. So you don't have the usual protections that you have outside that religious school. If you're employed by private school, secular school, you're fired for that, you have a claim. At the religious school you wouldn't have a claim because there's this exception and that exception comes to the US Constitution. So once you go there, in terms of putting that into this commission piece in, that will open up to challenge that that requirement to comply with anti-discrimination laws basically is a form of discrimination against that religious school based on stats again. So I think that's why you've got a separate claim there that would be in addition to anything you have on the main certification. I hope that's helpful. The way I see it, I understand what Jim is saying, but since this would be a requirement to become an approved independent school, there might be some religious schools that don't follow the anti-discrimination laws, but it wouldn't be all of them. So it would be a, you know, a constitutional in mind view, which is very uneducated on the topic, but because we're not saying because you're a religious school, you aren't becoming an approved schools because you didn't follow this requirement of following the state laws. And if I understand like one school could say, well, we can't follow them because of our religious beliefs and therefore it's a religious discrimination. But since it seems to, from what I heard professor teach, I'd say it's debatable. So I would rather fall on the side of protecting Bermonters from that discrimination and then see where the constitutional chips fall later. Senator Chingan. I agree in concept with what you just said, Senator Purchlich, but I feel like what Jim is saying to us in practicality and practical senses, if we add the anti-discrimination clause, we're inviting, I'm going to just make a mock idea of a really bad school with terrible foundational and tons of issues that they could then make the claim that they're not getting the funding because of this one little thing and it's not the, that the other reasons why they can't can't qualify or be certified. Whereas if we just make it a certification thing in practice and practicality, it's going to work out and achieve our ends and what I think I heard professor teach out say is, sometimes things are best addressed when they need to be rather than through advanced perspective so I hear you and I agree we need to be anti racist and anti discriminatory, but it seems like in this sense when writing this law might make more sense to just have a certification yet to be finalized or clarified. But, but that doesn't. Are you saying Senator chin and that you believe the same goals would be met. In practice. House. By having certifications that require certain accessibility certain degree of parking certain certifications of the faculty that teach there. I'm expecting that. I would trust most on our civility in our society to have those certifications adopted by the Department of Education that are going to have any of those extreme schools already not meet that certification threshold without this anti discriminatory clause. But I'm the new guy. So I could go either way. I'm just, this is helpful. It's a dial. It's a conversation. So, Jim does that with that, the way Senator Shannon is proposing. Is there a way to protect LGBTQ students. We're talking about students protection here we're talking about employee protections. Okay, I'm sorry, but we're talking about employee protections. Are we able to protect the LGBTQ employees as Senator chin put forward through certification or is it need to be. I think it's kind of the same thing. I think, okay, you require directly to a law with your certification or through rules. The substance of it is if you're acquiring the visit schools to obey federal state employment laws. Then there's an exception that they can't take, take advantage of, which is in the Constitution. So that raises to me the question, are you then screaming and the school is based on their staffs again. So I think that's the issue. I remember the arguments made by certain person. And I agree it's not a scammed out case on either side. I'm just saying it's an additional substantive claim that I think you can expect to see brought brought the case. Can I ask why, why is it not relevant. I mean, anti discrimination policies. Why are students not. Why are we not talking about students for example, could a transgender student be turned down from religious and could rice say we're not going to admit a transgender I think so because, because rice more high school and Burburton are both places of public accommodation. And therefore, I believe they are so it's all the requirements as a public accommodation, which, which bars discrimination based on all those categories, people that you're serving. So this is an issue around students and it's an issue around the planet law of staff. Yeah. I'm not the expert in this area, I have to say I have researched it some but might want for the testimony about when we have people in the ACLU and we've got people in the international world that you have testify about how these laws work. If you want. It's a great conversation very helpful. I appreciate everybody's questions and comments. Any other questions or comments at this point it sounds like we should table it for now. Let people think about it. I'm sorry, Senator turns it. I apologize. That's all right. Thank you, Senator campaign. To go along with center campaigns last question for Jim, and maybe you answered already but you know I'm thinking like rice MSJ Burm Burton but then some of these. I don't know how you would define it but a real like area Christian school that you are sent, you know you need a letter from your church for example as a student to get enrolled there and so on. What would a school like that have the ability to say yes or no based on sexual orientation or whatever else. Again, if it's placing public accommodation. I'm not sure the facts you gave me much how they fit that. Exactly because you mentioned a letter in a church and, but if it's place a public accommodation. I believe it has to comply with all those laws around not discriminating against marginalized groups people of color. People are based on gender or. So, I think the answer to your question is those rules would apply, but I would love to confirm by somebody who knows more about this than me. Thank you Jim. I just saw you unmuted did you have a question. I was just going to say that for the senator turns in his question is, if the school is accepting public money then they, I think what Jim was saying would apply but like in my district I have several Christian schools that are just private Christian schools that don't take public money so they, they can do whatever they want because they're a private school so they, they, it wouldn't apply to them, I would assume. I'm not sure about that, in terms of, in terms of not making a student based upon the fact that student is gay. I'm not sure they can do that. It's in her personally. Sorry, go ahead. No, I was just saying thank you center for you cleaned up my question beautifully. That was way smoother than how I just said it so thank you for that. Can I so just going along with the comment that Jim made. The equal protections clause under the Constitution might have something to say about the discrimination that would be seen in a purely religious environment, the schools that we've been talking about now. And that's a question really I guess. I can answer that question that the equal section clause applies to government, government and to, to private businesses that are places of public accommodation. Right. So, again, it goes back to that same question I've been talking about. And maybe we get some within the Human Rights Commission or somebody in here to talk about all those laws apply. Okay. Anything else?