 Welcome everybody, Senate Education Thursday June 11th remote COVID emergency hearing and we have three different issues today. The first of which is as you know an outstanding amendment for third reading on S 224. And as per our discussion on the floor. The last time out, Senator Brock is here to offer an amendment to the segment of that bill that dealt with gender equity on the UVM trustees. So with that I'll, I'll turn it over to him. Did everyone receive the text of the amendment and can you all pull it up should have come from John Bloomer and you should be able to access. Okay, Senator Brock welcome. This particular amendment that you all have by the way does have a typo in it. That the editors apparently did not catch in paragraph see section six, the next of the last line, the word are should be deleted. Now that said, this amendment came after our discussion on the floor yesterday regarding this particular amendment. I think that we're all unanimous in saying that there ought to be equity in across the board and that we are concerned about the UVM Board of Trustees lack of gender equity. But there are other equity issues as well. And the concern, I think that I expressed at that time I believe Senator White joined with me is that by putting numbers in of the number of people of a particular gender, or any other protected group. We create the appearance of a quota system, even though there is no quota that is mandated by the language in the bill that we've received the implicit mandate is there. I think it raises a lot of potential unintended consequences. What happens for example I think it was a question that I asked the reporter the bill yesterday that when you achieve gender equity. And let's say you get to a point in which there are more women than men on the board, what do you do then based on the numbers that are contained in the bill as it now reads. Do you say that the next person that you appoint to the board has to be a man in order to restore that balance. What happens if you have an exceptionally well qualified black man who is being considered for the board at the same time a qualified but perhaps less eminently qualified white woman is there as a potential appointee. Do you on the basis of this guidance decide to appoint the white woman. We found an endless chain of possibilities that that raise more and more questions. I think the most important thing to do is to look at the issue of all of the things that we need to do regarding equity and diversity on our boards and commissions. And that's why we crafted this particular language. If we take a look at the language in particular, it's largely a rewrite of section D, which reinforces the state goal of having balanced representation on Vermont public bodies to ensure equity and opportunity for all members of society to participate on the basis of merit, regardless of their gender gender identity, race, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disability status, or any other personal descriptor. But at the same time, recognizing that the gender imbalance that we certainly see on the UVM board. It's not clear that this goal is being met. The point is an electing authorities of board members and then goes on to say that it's incumbent on those who do appointments and those who elect authorities or who elect directors to use their best efforts to further the state goal of having balanced representation on these boards. And this is the important piece of this, recognizing that their efforts are their efforts will be monitored by the General Assembly and the public. And this is a statement perhaps that's so much stronger than we have made, and that is we're going to be watching what you do. We're going to review what you do, we're going to cause you in the last paragraph to report what you do, and to tell us not just the numbers but tell us what you have done in terms of recruitment and replacement strategies for recently expired or eminently expiring trustee positions, we're going to shed light on it, we're going to be watching it. We're going to build them in very explicit terms that our goals are to achieve balance but without using quotas or implicit quotas to do that. Okay, clear enough. Questions for Senator Brock from the committee. Senator England. Thank you. I've got F 35s very loud in my backyard. Well, thank you, Senator Brock. So, one question I have is the language, not including numbers to me makes this more of a subjective thing than the way I like about numbers is that they're, they're clear their objective. There's no, you know, we're going around them. You know, because some of the testimony that we actually got from the chair of the UVM board was basically that, you know, he, yeah, he would like to have, you know, women that that were as good as men. But they're getting these business people like from Wall Street or the financial industry and there just aren't that many women that are as good as the men. Well, that's because there's discrimination against women in that business, you know, in that sector, you know, as well. So, so I, you know, I just wonder if do you not see maybe a pitfall in not in not having actual numbers and that the numbers could be positive rather than the negative the way you seem to be to be viewing them. You know, you could have that point of view. But, you know, in my judgment, holding people at the appointing and electing level accountable for achieving results of balance is the most important thing that we can do. I think it's a clear statement of what we would like to see, but micromanaging it to the standpoint of saying you've got to elect X number of people of a certain race or creed or color or gender. Where does it stop. And is it appropriate is this the kind of thing that we do from a stamp from a from a perspective of equity. Here's the examples that I gave it creates a situation in which you then are forced to make other choices down the line based on that choice you've made. And some of those choices could be very unpleasant and consequential. I think that we have the ability and I think the language in this proposed amendment is designed to do that just that to tell those who are making appointments such as that chair of the UVM board this is what we expect to see. And what's implicit in that is, if you don't do that, we're going to be watching, and we're not going to sit idly by, while that happens. That is a strong message. I think it's an important message. So, it's, I have one question. Oh, go ahead, Debbie. So we had used the phrase in in our amendment we use the phrase that they were obligated. Where is that. I think you're something like that. Coming upon the legislative and executive branches to undertake efforts to further the state goal. Yeah, and indeed we have the the UVM self perpetuating board members have an obligation to address. Would you would you object if we made the language stronger if we took some of your language but made the language stronger that they have an obligation. I feel that that at least is a little income. I don't know that obligation to ensure equity. I would not have a problem with that. If it's an obligation to appoint 13 or 14 women, I would have a problem with that. Senator Hardy. So, so, Senator Brock, I appreciate and respect your, your attempts here and I especially like one of the things I do like about your amendment is that it does provide a broader view of diversity and representation than our focus which was solely on gender. I do appreciate that and I, and I've had many conversations or at least two or three conversations with you in the past about this issue so I, I understand where you're coming from. I guess to answer your question about what happens if there are 18 women on the board. In my opinion I would celebrate and say yay, we finally have more women than men on the board. We're over 200 years of having either only men or far more men than women on the board so that's a cause for me for celebration. So just to answer that question. But to, to your point of the sort of awkward possibilities of what if there's an African American man and a white woman how do you, how do you reconcile that. And that is definitely a hard question when you're looking at the numbers. However, I'm concerned about not defining what we mean by gender balance or racial diversity or whatever it is because those without a true definition in there or a specific definition in the world, then everybody has a subjective view about what it is. And, you know, my view clearly is different than your view so wondering if we can find a middle ground where we have a definition that is that is stronger or firmer than your definition, where you can see it as quota and I don't know what that is but I'm trying to figure out if there's a middle ground where we can define it but not move into the area where you feel it's a quota. Well, one of one of the questions becomes you know as a former state auditor people always look to me to define things that can be auditable and not everything can be auditable. Now, achieving balance for example in this way is not one unless you want to achieve balance by saying, we need five women, one transgender person, two people with disabilities and one person of color. And then you would argue about those numbers as to whether they're the right numbers when what we really want to do is we want to have intelligent people use their best judgment with our overall guidance in mind, so that we can step back at a look. Most of us collectively and probably with a degree of consensus and say, yes, we've got a balanced board. Well, they have 11 women, it may have 15 women, it may have one person who's transgender may have none in a particular case, but is it balance. I take the point, Senator Brock, I guess I would respond by saying Jeanette on the floor made it clear that when she served on the board, she felt as though there was a balance. I'm willing to bet there was no more than a third women on the board when she was on there, but she was she was of the impression that it seemed balanced to her. What Senator Hardy is getting at is, how do you prevent people from saying well we feel it's balanced, even though technically there are twice as many men, it feels balanced to us. I think that one of the things that you will certainly see, particularly by those who are the proponents of the legislation as drafted that they're not going to sit idly by it quietly. They're not going to allow that to happen. They're going to speak up and those voices are going to be heard just as they're being heard right now. So, let me suggest something given that we have a number of witnesses waiting. I do not hear dismissal of this amendment, I don't hear immediate acceptance of it, but it seems like the differences between what is here and what could be acceptable to the committee are relatively minor. I'm wondering if as the presenter of the section Debbie if you might be willing to just do a little work with Senator Brock and Senator white offline. Just to go the extra mile see if we can find language that we can both accept. That would be preferable to me. If not, then we'll take a straw vote on the amendment as it stands but Senator Hardy. I just want to offer one suggestion I don't know if this will work but something along the lines of you remember the graphic that that Senator Pearson held up yesterday while we were debating on the floor. Perhaps something that is something about the board being reflective of the demographic diversity of the student body or the student and faculty or something like that. Given that more than more than 50% I think it's close to 60% of the students at UVM are women. So maybe a definition along those lines, just offering that but I appreciate the suggestion to have them work on it more. Yeah, but it certainly is a thought the one thing I noticed and looking at that demographic is the student trustees were both men. Just an observation. irony. Yeah. Okay, so, so we'll tentatively table the amendment and if it turns out that you're able to come to an agreement. Jim Demerick and pretty quickly drafted up and then it would be great if we could all support it together on the floor. If not, then we'll conduct a straw vote and I'll let you and Senator White know Senator Brock what what the outcome of that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you members of the committee. Absolutely. Thanks for coming in. So, as promised, Emily Simmons has to be out of here by a time certain of three o'clock. So, if everybody could take a look at the draft, Becky Wasserman sent us in terms of the HVAC and air circulatory systems. And I believe that Emily Simmons is going to respond to this draft. Okay, anytime you're ready Emily. Okay, thank you so much for the record Emily Simmons General Counsel at the Agency of Education. I have had a chance to review the draft. I've also had a chance. Thanks. Thanks to the superintendent's association to review the written testimony of superintendent Peter, Peter Burroughs that you're going to hear I believe. So I can be very brief in saying that I spoke to the secretary about the draft, and he and I agreed that the agency's comments will be very much in line with those comments that you will hear from the superintendent's association. Our concerns are generally along the same lines and I would say that our concerns are not very serious they're just questions that we realize that you are asking and we want to be thought partners in those same questions like what will the total cost of this program be and is this appropriation going to be an appropriate amount we believe it is but again we want to just let you know that we can't be sure because we have so many moving parts. And then with myself being who I am I looked particularly at the section that alleviates the requirement to go out to bid for these projects would treat these projects as emergency construction. I think that's totally appropriate in terms of state law and usually when we're talking about construction those are state funds here you will be allowing districts to go around the state bid law for the use of these federal funds. Due to the bans on my time this week I've not had an opportunity to research what bid requirements would apply to this federal money. Obviously we in Vermont can't relieve districts of any federal requirements. So I don't think that you have any problems that require redrafting in that bid section I just don't want you to feel that you over promised or that the agency didn't highlight for you, that there might still be some bidding requirements from the fed. I'm really happy to work with Becky on on that research question. Great. And as you say that can be an ongoing question as the language moves, because it wouldn't require a redraft it would just require us adjusting our expectations in terms of time really. Okay, any, any, I'm sorry. Thank you for Emily. Okay, Emily thank you so much. And so it is fair for me to say that whatever comes out of Peter Burroughs mouth you support. It's fair to say that I will review your conversation later tonight and email you with anything that comes up that I would have said had I been here how about that. I was thinking what we would do is we would ask him some questions about other bills, and, and then use that as your opinion. There's a few that you might ask him about too so I'll follow up. Senator ring room did you have a question. Okay, somebody I thought was trying to know. Okay. Thank you very much Emily appreciate it. Thanks for accommodating my schedule everyone. Yep.