 So with that, this afternoon, we are returning to S13 with the hopes that we might be able to move something this week on a waiting study answering some questions that are outstanding and keep this bill alive. I think the other piece of it is, this would give the house a tool from which to work during the second half of the session, something that they can add to, and this would also have to go to appropriations. So we're going to start with that. We're then going to return to S100, the agriculture bill that we worked on yesterday and we'll be receiving a fiscal note on that. Then we'll look at the S16 amendment and concluding with their current hat in school, preliminary or first bit of testimony that we're going to take from the agency of education. They will be coming in this afternoon. I'm looking for a report from them and update on where things are with that investigation. I know many of you have inboxes that are full of emails and queries concerns. So we will start to look into that. And as I believe I've mentioned to everyone, we will continue that work next week with the chairs in the committees on health and welfare and judiciary. We will be working to schedule morning meetings. That is when judiciary and health and welfare meet, knowing that most, there are at least, let's say three members of the health and welfare in this committee. And then I will ask to be relieved of Senate natural resources and energy. And then Senator Chittenden's and Purchlick knowing that they're in transportation, depending on their schedules, hoping that they might be able to join us or share time with us depending. Senator Purchlick, question? No, okay. With that, I would like to turn it back to Jim. Jim, hope you had a great birthday. I did, thank you. Terrific. We are looking at the strike all amendment to S13. You took us through it yesterday. And I'm wondering if you would just again, because we do have a number of people coming in today to testify on it. If you would just again, just give us the brief overview of that bill and what we're working to do. Sure, I said. So for the record, Jim Damary of this console, we are talking about the committee draft amendment to S13 draft 1.1. This amendment would be a strike all and would create the task force on the implementation of the people waiting in fact, faster to report. And before we go on, should I put this on the screen for you? Does it be there? I don't think so. Unless I see a Senator that is looking for that to be on the screen. Thank you. No, thanks. Okay, so task force broadly, we recommend how to implement the report from UVM. And the membership of the task force would be composed of six members, four from the legislature. So you have one member from Sant Finance, one from Sant Education, one from House Ways and Means, one from House Education, each appointed by the chairs of those committees. In addition, you have the Secretary of Education or a designee and the Chair of the State Board or a designee. The powers and duties of the task force are to, again, recommend how to implement the report, but specifically it shall recommend which waiting factors to modify or create and their associated weights and whether any ways to be eliminated in lieu of use of categorical grants. Recommend whether and how to ensure that school districts are using funding to meet education quality standards to improve student outcomes and opportunities. Consider education property tax rates and the taxing capacity of school districts and how the task force's waiting factors recommendations relate to the recommendations of the Tax Structure Commission Report issued in February. Recommend how to transition to the new weights to promote equity and ease the financial impact on school districts during the transition to the new weights including the availability and use of federal funding during the transition to consider use of categorical aid, including whether categorical aid should be used instead of somewhere all of the waiting factors and if waiting factors are used whether small school grants, transportation aid and other state grant funding targeted for a specific purpose should be adjusted or terminated to recommend how tuition rates for non-operating school districts and career technical centers should be adjusted to account for the cost of educating students as reflected in the recommended weights to consider school funding formulas and other states and alternative models for school funding to consider the relationship between the recommended weights and Acts 1783 and Act 60 and Act 46. And then Task Force may retain a consultant to assist it. The report would be due January 15th of next year. Meetings should be not more than six. Assistance would be from the AOE, typical compensation and reimbursement. And there are two appropriations in section two, one for per diem reimbursement of 5,400. And the next is a blank and that would be for the consultant. That's the date on passage. And just to remind the committee that we do go through the, so we're gonna weigh factors work and if you want to, I'm happy to go through that again with you to give you our context for this, so. So my recommendation first would be to I'm thinking we should look at this in different parts. First would be what people feel what senators are comfortable with in terms of constructing this study committee, the membership, the direct and then look at the direction a little bit and then the appropriation. But before we do that, is everyone are people interested in an overview and in a review of what of the weighting as Mr. Demeray offer Mr. Senator Pertlick. I was gonna comment on the on the bill. I don't feel like we need to go back over the weighting but I'm happy to do that. Why don't we start then with your question or comment? It's just overall, while the first point is I think we should call it an implementation task force and not a study because I think I agree with some of the criticism we might have received that people feel like we're studying the study which I don't think we're doing if you read the bill that we're trying to implement the study. So that's just a rhetorical point but I think in related to that, we don't have any findings in here and often I find findings to be excessive but I think in some cases they're helpful and I thought maybe some findings here that kind of a little bit of the history not to go through everything but that we did do this study. We asked for the study we realized there was a problem we asked for the study. The study made these conclusions doesn't have to go through everything that the study said but just like the basic conclusions of the study showing that there was this inequity or that the weights were, we don't know how the weights were established originally and that new weights should be looked at, at the very least in that the legislature is wanting to move forward on that. I thought it would be a good way to start the bill to frame it that we do wanna move forward that we're not just studying it again. I think that's in all our great points. I certainly and I don't see any objection at the moment to changing the title to the implement that would title it implementation task force or something along those lines. So that's seeing no objection, Jim, if you would do that, thank you. Well, with regard to context and findings, I think that's also an excellent point and Jim, if I could look to you to do that and work with us a little bit on that to find some findings too, to give some context again to the work that we would be doing on this within this group. So yes, I wanted to mention I just put in this chat box here. Okay. The S13 as introduced had findings in it. Okay. That was Senator Verruth's work to do the implementation as well. So we can put the findings in from his bill if you want, they're very much, I don't know if that's what you're talking about, I believe. Okay. Well, I'd have to go look at them, but they're probably, you probably wrote them, right? I wrote them. Yeah. Actually, I didn't like them. He wrote them. You were involved in some way. And so Jim, you feel as though they represent that what we're trying to get at. It's a good start for sure. All right. So yes, if you would include those, that would be great, that'd be helpful. Senator Lanz. No, I was gonna say, I was just reading the bill that Jim put up in the chat for us. And it does look like it would be very useful. Okay. You mentioned changing the name of the task force. It already says task force on the implementation of the People Waiting Factors Report. So do you want a different title or is that sufficient? Senator Persik, were you referring to the title or how we were referring to it, how I was referring to it in committee? I probably, who were you correcting? The councilor that share, I just put clarification. I would never correct the chair, but I would just remind members of the committee, I don't think we should refer to it as a committee, as a study. Yes. A study committee that it's an implementation task force. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Lanz, please. Yeah, so while we're there, and then what does the, let me just remember, because my brain is so fried right now, but what is the outcome? What is the outcome? Is the outcome, whether and how to ensure our districts are using funding to meet, do we want to be more affirmative in what we say? And that is we recommend how, we just say how it's going to happen. I'm saying if we do whether and how, then it becomes a study again. How do we make it feel like we're really getting down to the nitty-gritty and this is it? I mean, knowing of course, whatever is put in legislation, there's an opportunity to change, but the whether and how thing. Yeah. So, the center person, go ahead. Yeah. That was going to be one of my comments is that. Okay. The thing is quote, unquote, just a report. I mean, they could do other things, but there is no action. And I thought it would be good if we had something in there that's, you know, gave a deadline for the actual implementations of the other recommendations, because they could just recommend it and then nothing could happen. And then those communities that have had this unequitable funding just have to wait more time. So, I was thinking that we would be clear that this will be implemented by, you know, a date certain, the recommendations coming out of the implementation task force. So, rather than have a report, why don't we just have implementation legislation? Or, you know, I mean, really, so when it comes back to us, it's ready to go. Yeah, I've seen that done effectively. Senator Lyons, I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you as well as I usually hear. And that could, you're coming across, but I like you blaring. And because at 50, you know, not the kid I once was. Don't tell my husband that. Hear me better, I turned it up a little. It's fine, I'll get there. I can turn it up on my end. So, let's think about this for a moment then. We're asking them to consider a lot of information that again, in my mind, they would have to come back and report. There certainly might be some things in here that would require legislative action. You know, I have seen where other task force come back with a report, but also the draft legislation. But I don't know, I guess we'd need legislation. So, for example, I mean, consider school funding formulas and alternative models for school funding. A lot of these still are, you know, although we're moving toward implementation, they still are things to questions that need to be answered before implementation, I would say. I mean, we certainly, I mean, I again, I'm not opposed to having the task force submit a written report and draft legislation. I mean, I have no problem with where appropriate. I'm just thinking that there are things that of course can be, might need something, but recommending which weighting factors to modify or create, and their associated weights, again, these are recommends. Yes, we're moving closer to implementing and I think Senator Perch like your point is a good one. We're not there yet. These are just still, I'd say, outstanding questions that I think many of us feel would end up, well, colleagues are asking or they're gonna be asked, you know, as we move forward. But I, again, Senator Hooker. I was just gonna say that if we're looking for other ways to affect this, to deal with this, wouldn't we have to be specific if we wanted them to come back with something that we had to implement, like to say we're gonna use categorical grants or something like that in order to make it more imperative that we move on something rather than say looking for other forms of equalization. So, I mean, we're gonna ask them to come up with something more direct. Senator Perch? I mean, we are saying they're coming up with the new weighting factors. I mean, I understand that, you know, Professor Colby did have that in the study, but I think even she, when she testified, thought, you know, really kind of thinking about how you implement those and different things about tuition towns and different, there are complications. So we want somebody to make sure we're figuring that all out. But we are telling them, we'll figure it out. And that's why I think it is, it isn't just the name that we do want them to implement them, but there are questions about how to implement them. And we want them to figure those out. But I don't see, my hope is that they come back and they say, here's how you implement them. And then we just implement them. But if we'd like, I guess, like Senator Lyne said, you know, we could always change it, but I guess the next legislature would have a decision to make. Yeah. Whether or not. Well, or we could, so there's gonna be a consultant in this and it's gonna be, and we're gonna have a deep dig on maybe how categorical grants are used or not and so on. And so we're, maybe what we're asking for are specific decision points for these topics. So if there's a decision to be made, but I do, I want to see it somehow in legislation. I'm just tough. What decision points would the legislature consider during its deliberations on the recommended legislation? So they can make a recommendation and then within the recommended language, there are gonna be some points of discussion. Right, during their process. During their process, but then it'll identify our process. This is for next year, right? So we're just telling ourselves what to do next year. And we're telling. Right, with the help of, yeah, yeah, with the help of this perhaps committee, as well as, you know, they're a possible consultant, you know, that would support their work. Senator Perswick, I'm sorry, Senator Lyons, go ahead. I have a question. Yeah. So the concerns, I won't use the word complaints, but the complaints I've heard, I will, from people out there saying that we're dragging our feet on this is you have another month and a half of this session. Why can't you, as an education committee, do the deep dive and work through all this? And I guess my response to that, I'm trying to think of a response, but I think the response I would have is, well, then it has to go to the house for the same deep dive. And then a possible conference committee, why don't we have the deep dive happen with a committee that, whoops, a task force that can accomplish all of that in a shorter period, in a more comprehensively. Yeah, no, I think, yeah, no, you're getting certainly at what we are driving at. I've not heard, I don't know, in my email, I have something called the compliment filter, so I don't get bad emails, I just get compliments and I will send that app to all of you. But if you are getting some concerns, yes, I think you have articulated them quite well. And I think you have also articulated the response quite well, I mean, this is what I think, answering these questions and coming up with a plan and as Senator Perslick has said, even draft legislation where needed, so that we are ready to go, knowing that this is also going to be in something that the house will work on as well. Senator Perslick. Yeah, and maybe it's just in the findings, but I wondered if it could be as part of that, part of the bill that we were saying it's our intent to implement these. Yeah. Well, you know, the next legislature could say, well, that was fine, that that was your intent, but then we decided against it, but. It's us. Yeah. The enemy is us. Jim, do you want to jump in here? I just wanted to mention that in Senator Peruse's language in S13, this is striking, there is a section at the end that talks about this very issue. So in that chat, if you can go back to that chat, you can see it, but at the end, he talks about further action to be taken. Which I think that, and I maybe I'm thinking, because it wasn't the S13 as the way it was introduced was basically what we had passed. Like you last year, correct? Yes. Yeah. So there's section three that's the requirement for additional legislative action talking about the process going forward, right? Yeah. And here it says the agency's implementation plan. We've heard from the agency, and I know we're gonna be sending other work to the agency, but right now, this isn't great timing for them. And so we would change that to the implementation plan that's being put forth by this group. Yeah, I like that last paragraph. Okay. He also in the bill, it talks about a phased approach. I'm sorry, I was looking at the bill. So I spoke out of turn, I apologize. Senator Perslick. Yeah, I like that language as well. And maybe we also want to call what the task force is doing is an implementation plan and not a report like we do in original S13. I think that's, it's doing other things. Maybe it's a report and implementation plan because there's some that are just reporting on like what other states are doing or different education funding methods, but then there's an implementation plan on the waiting. Yeah, no, and I do think it's both. I think these, I want to, I know we all want to be respectful of colleagues and others constituents that have put these questions forward to us and they are going to help us moving forward and the implementation of this, getting these answered. And so I think it is, it's both. It's both, you know, in a way, Jim, if you could think about this as a study and draft implementation plan, draft legislation, implementation, you know, something like that. Sure. I like Phillip's last paragraph there. Yep, okay, yep. Senator Hooker. I'm reading a complex. No, no, I'm just, I'm thinking, you know, I'm looking at the last paragraph and thinking God says, you know, it says to do what we would normally do about legislation, you know, look at it, make changes if we need to and then send it out for a vote. So would there be, you know, do we want, I mean, Senator Purchill, if you said something about a time, you know, when do you want this implemented by? We'd have to date. We'd have to date. Yeah, what did that say? This is on, this one was on passage, but that's the bill itself. I don't know as far as what we would do when it came back to us. Is your intent, our intent is to have this done next year. So. I guess the question is, what's the date that this has to be in law in order to affect change for school budgets? So if we do it next year, it won't be until 2023. Right. Right. So I think we would stick with what Senator Baruth said, which would be going into effect next year. Is the soonest, I mean. ASAP. Yeah, Senator Chinden. I know the things take a long time. I am the new guy to this role, but I'll say 2023 is not that long in the grand scheme of things. And I just want to highlight something. I heard the pro tem say. I also hear Welch say, I also heard somebody else say, we're getting a bunch of money from the federal government and it's targeted at schools. And so as much as I feel the pain of these school boards and wanting to provide more for the children, I think we've got an excellent opportunity to address this concern in this intermediary time as we dive into it and do this right. So I just want to bring that back into this discussion. Yeah, thank you for that excellent reminder. I agree with that. That's why he's going to be the chair of approves. Anything else right now, we've given Mr. Demeray some information. We're also going to start to hear from some witnesses on this. But before we do, let's just pause for a moment and Jim, do you have, so we're again, and this is also for those who are about to testify, we are moving again, reminding ourselves, and in this, we're moving forward with implementation, implementation process. This is something that we will look upon our return at that will be both study to inform our colleagues and others of some of the decisions that are going to also be made, that will be drafted into legislation, draft legislation so that we can get back to work and pass this upon our return in January of 2022. Okay, and we're going to pull the findings from Senator Bruce Bill, as well as that last paragraph in terms of implementation, Senator Hooker. So what would we have to do to ensure that we had sort of that bridge funding that Senator Chittenden is talking about with the new money that just passed Congress? Yeah. That we could make sure that it will be used for these purposes. Do we look at what the waiting recommendations are in the report? Do we try to direct money towards those segments of the school budgets? What can we do to make sure that that's gonna happen between now and the time that we come up with this more permanent fix for this? Great question. So once we get past Crap Crossover, we're going to have a reset, we're gonna be looking at our priorities. Got a lot of things that will be coming from the house, but we also, as I hopefully have mentioned, we've been working closely with appropriations as these dollars come in. And there as we heard from Ms. Benham and Mr. Klein, we are going to schools, given the amount of money that they're gonna be receiving, they also may need assistance, not only in terms of how it's used but in how to direct it, but also business managers and others may need assistance and we might need to develop systems so that they know how to put this money out, et cetera. So I guess the short of it is, it's gonna be a crossover, post crossover conversation with the probes as we get a better handle on these dollars. Okay. All right, so let's, we have a little more time before we move into S 100. So let's hear from Mr. Nichols, Mr. Francis, Ms. Siglowski and Mr. Fanon on this. And I appreciate all of you being here. You know, time is tight, which I know you all respect. And so why don't we go through and hear your thoughts if possible. I'm hoping to wrap this up by about quarter to three so that we can do S 100 and a few other things before we move on to the current hat and hearing. So with that, Mr. Nichols. Good afternoon, committee. For the record, J. Nichols, Executive Director of the Vermont Principles Association. I guess I'm gonna skip my written testimony and I'll send out to Jeannie to put up and just focus on the strike-through bill, given the time limits that you have. So just a couple of quick thoughts on that. I think a task force created to implement, as you just talked about, the pupil waiting factors report makes sense to me. Great. I think you have the right members position for the task force, both the administration and the general assembly are taking responsibility, you know, by having the AOE and the state board as well as members of your chairs of committees. I like the idea of looking at categorical aid that's in there. And I'm glad that that's in there, especially around human services. Having consulting support makes sense. I would not try to do it without it, without some real expertise. With that, it'll be important to make sure that you have comprehensive input from all the stakeholder groups. I don't have a problem with the work being done by the end of six meetings, but I question whether or not that's possible. Better be a real good consultant. And then my last real point is hire a really good consultant. Make sure you have somebody who's really good. And the last thing I wanna say, I know we only have a couple of minutes, keep in mind, whoever's on this committee, and I definitely will be looking forward to talking to them, that roughly 80% of costs in public education can be attributed to staff compensation in one form or another. So we need to remember that public education is a human capital intensive endeavor. So in general, many of the districts that will experience increased tax burden upon implementation of a new waiting system will also be systems that on average, pay more for personnel. I don't have a specific recommendation around that, but it's something else that I think that the task force will need to consider. And I'm gonna keep it right there unless you have questions, but I will submit about five or six pages of written testimony too. Great, so as it relates to, again, the strike off from which we're working on, that's very helpful. I think your point about six meetings is a valid one. You know, again, I would just say that it's going to be the person or the organization that's supporting this work that's really gonna be doing the work, but it might be that in a new draft, we look to expand that. I would like to add, Jim, if you wouldn't, Mr. Nichols mentions, you know, their role, you know, other people's roles, is their language where you could say, knowing that this implementation task force is going to be, you know, this is the representation it has on it, but it is gonna be working with our educational partners or what you know what I'm looking for here. They all refer to themselves as these. It's, you know, it's something where it's broad enough where they are going to be bringing in other stakeholders. Sure, yep. If you would do something. Yep, yep. Questions for Mr. Nichols, Senator Perslick. Just a quick question, Jay, did the Zero Association think that the implementation, the way that we could implement the waiting study without a implementation plan? We haven't really had that specific discussion at the executive committee level. It's more been about, you know, winners and losers and worried about who's gonna implement it and what it's gonna look like. So I can tell you my own personal feeling on that. And I think that you could implement it right now, but I think it'd be very difficult. I would much rather see a real thorough plan that the legislature responded to in legislation because there will be statutory changes necessary, certainly around the waiting numbers, if nothing else. So I'm interpreting that as, you know, this plan that we're moving forward would be an acceptable step. Yes. Preferably. Senator Perslick, do you have a follow up? What I heard not only acceptable, but preferable. Preferably. Yes, yes. Your personal opinion. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Senator Termsini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jay, nice to see you. Would you say it's fair, as we talk about winners and losers, that equates to winners and losers sort of in the pocketbook. I mean, this is gonna be more expensive for some communities and less expensive for others. And there's gonna be winners and losers at the end of the day if this waiting study passes. Yeah, that's what I was referring to. And I'll send my written testimony to Jeannie and I talked about that some, the first three, four pages of my testimony are around the waiting study in general and in considerations, much of what you folks have talked about previously. And then the last two pages are recommendations to the roof bill, you know, the original bill and to this one. So yeah, I would say that that's exactly what I'm talking about. And do we, the question for you or the committee or someone, but do we have a list of every community in the state that this would be a negative financial impact or a positive financial savings for? We had one at one time, we had one shared with us. That was last year. I think it was from JFO, but I'm not really sure who shared it with us, but I think it was from somebody in JFO. Because, you know, as I said here, and I'm sure this is the same sentiment with all my colleagues on the committee. Senator Hooker and I were given a list of local school districts that in our county of Rutland that would be winners and losers in this. And regardless of how this decision goes down, there's gonna be some, like any vote you take, but there's gonna be some winners out there and some losers that we just talked about and some people that are supportive and some that aren't. So this is really, it's a tough bill from looking at it because it's gonna hurt some people out there regardless of how this decision goes down. So that's what's on my mind anyway as we talk about this. Yeah, no, it's an excellent point. Senator Perslick. I was just gonna let folks know, I'm pretty sure the whole listing of how the waiting study recommendations would affect each town is in an appendix of the report, at least from that date, maybe it would change from now, but I think we saw that in the report itself. It is around, and I think every school district, every school knows where it stands. But remember that there's benefit to schools all over the state. I think there's more benefit than not. And regardless, we haven't looked at this in so long that it's time because they're inequities right now where schools are losing out big time because we haven't corrected it previously. Catch 22 again. So we're circling the biggest concern and pause I have on this whole topic, which is we're just talking about reallocating the tax formula, which isn't about educational opportunities. So that's why I love the direction of this new strike all, because it really makes sure that we couple this with ensuring that our kids are the winners and that our kids reach or have access to a certain threshold of standards and resources in our schools. So when there are going to be winners and losers from a tax perspective, but what I'm excited about with the direction of this is that it's going to reanchor this discussion back to how do we ensure that kids have equitable access to resources with fair spending, which is what I thought was the thrust of Act 60. So I'm really excited about the direction this is going in for a thoughtful implementation so that in the end, the winners, the kids and then the losers are always going to be the taxpayers and that's just the way taxes are. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Nichols, thank you. Mr. Francis. Thank you. This is Jeff Francis, is my audio okay? Yes. Okay, so I also provided written testimony. It's two pages. The first page and a half is context on the perspective from the superintendents association, which touches on many of the points that have been raised by the committee. As an association, we had to look at this from a statewide perspective because of the notion of so-called winners and losers and it's best in our view if it gets looked at as a matter of equity and necessity. The last three paragraphs and they're short of my written testimony hone in on just a couple of points that I'll reiterate for you and I am thinking Bill Doyle, Senator Campion as I provide this testimony. So the first point that we make is that careful consideration for the process of implementation for the waiting changes cannot be overstated and that seems to be the sentiment of the committee with regard to your amendment. We also acknowledge the need to act by indicating that the waiting changes must occur for more fairness and equity in the system. Vermont's funding system is based on principles of equity and to not adjust the weights in order to achieve better equity would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of our funding system. We then go on to say that it's important that all communities understand what the implications and effects will be in those communities because they will need to plan for change. And you've talked about the fiscal effects as well as the educational effects and that is the education delivery system. We try to do the very best we can for kids and we try to pay attention to costs and this is going to adjust the tax rate burdens thus the importance of going into this extraordinarily thoughtfully. With regard to the strike all proposal, I think it's a reasonable approach provided that you all do what you say you intend to do which is actually act. So I was intrigued by the discussion about study versus implementation. And I think that every educator in Vermont should be interested in education because of the need for better equity in the system. I think that the approach that you're taking is going to deliver recommendations for legislation or legislation itself. I think that it's very important that the General Assembly act and act deliberately. I took note of the discussion about timing and you are right. If the legislation does not get enacted until the next session, the second half of this biennium then it will be nearly impossible to have those weights go into effect in fiscal year 23. And then finally, I have one specific recommendation and this has also been alluded to by your discussion. I think that the bill should include a provision that requires the task force to determine and undertake reasonable methods to ensure that the voice of local school officials, school communities and citizens inform the report. And that is directly from a paragraph in my testimony. This looks in a report and a spreadsheet and a model as theoretical. It's far from theoretical in how it's going to play out on the ground. The last modeling of the weighting recommendations were done in February of 2020. Senator Perchlick referenced the report itself in February 2020, the model was update and there are dramatic swings in tax rates based on that model as much as 40 cents up or down per community. So one charge to the task force should be to have a new model produced so that everybody is very clear what the effects of this are. And then my last two points and I'll wrap up. I think that the legislation would benefit not only from clarity in the title but also an explicit statement that says it is the intent of the general assembly to act to implement new weights. That would give you the opportunity to maybe look at a weight and learn more about how that weight was established. But I don't think that people should be left wondering if new weights will go into effect. And then the final thing I would say is that you indicated Senator Campion that you're looking for a vehicle to have the full Senate consider and also house deliberations. The house has a bill H54 which is a different approach. I suspect that they'll still be interested in their approach but I would urge you to do what I think you intend to do which is vote a bill out of your committee this week so that we can watch this process move toward it's reasonable end which is an adjustment of those weights. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Friends. There was a lot there. I just want to capture if you wouldn't mind and I don't want to miss something if you would just take that last paragraph the part that you really feel is that we need to make certain adjustments to the bill if you would email that to me so I can have a look at it maybe to the entire committee. Sure, it's in my testimony which you have. I sent it to Jeannie around noon today but I'll also send an email to you with regard to a statement of intent. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, I think that, well, I think Jim you can capture that the statement of intent. I just want to make sure there wasn't something else that you said that we're... Yeah, I think it's in my testimony and I'll be with your committee the rest of the way so further questions arise. But in summary, the weights do need to change. You should be deliberate, thoughtful and move forward. Yep. Thank you. Mr. Glowski, good to see you. Good to see you too. Thank you, Chair Campion. I also submitted written testimony to the committee on its two pages and I won't read through all of it. Just summarize it and let you know that the VSBA's official public policy positions on issues of interest to school boards are derived both from its resolutions which are submitted by member school boards and voted on at each annual meeting. And also if there's no applicable resolution then the position is by vote of the VSBA board on a motion made during a VSBA board meeting. In my written testimony, I provided you with the two resolutions that we have addressing equalization and equity in high quality learning opportunities. So I would encourage you to read those but I'm not going to read them right now. I'll just move on to let you know that since the release of the report in December of 2019, the VSBA board has voted on three motions relative to the report. In March of 2020 at the board meeting, Professor Tammy Colby presented the report and its findings to the VSBA board and to determine an advocacy position more specific to the report. The board voted and approved two motions at that meeting. The first motion was that the VSBA fully supports the findings as presented in the waiting study and that passed unanimously with one abstention. The second motion was that the VSBA request the legislature to thoughtfully and expeditiously establish an implementation plan in pursuit of equity of outcomes for all students and one that is designed to build capacity within our systems to absorb the changes in funding due to changes in weights. And that also passed unanimously with one abstention because we didn't see any progress on that second motion that I just mentioned. The board did revisit the issue in June and voted unanimously to approve that the following position be communicated to key legislative leaders after the general assembly completed its June session and recessed until August when it came back. And so that motion was that the VSBA advocates for the establishment in this biennium which this would now be the legislative session of 2020 of a working group to address implementation of the waiting study recommendations with a set timeline for the creation of the working group product. And that motion passed unanimously. So our president Neil Odell sent a letter to the committee chairs in early August to that effect. And since the working group was not established in the last biennium, the VSBA's position on the report continues to be represented by the motions from a year ago, March 2020. And that is support for the findings of the report and a thoughtful and expeditious implementation plan in pursuit of equity for all students. And I'll just finish by letting you know that we're providing this information on the resolutions and the motions to convey VSBA's strong support for the findings of the report and a thoughtful and expeditious implementation plan. S13's formation of a task force on the implementation of the report is a step in the right direction. Establishing a plan to implement the report is important work which should not be delayed. Thank you. Very good. Thank you for that. Questions or comments? Suspect you'll be with us, Ms. Siglespie as we continue a little bit here in case something pops up. Mr. Fannin. Thank you for the record, Jeff Fannin, Vermont NEA. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you about version 1.1 of S13. We support and agree with this version of the bill. We think equity is obviously critical to the success of Vermont schools. And certainly Vermont NEA members absolutely know that the issue of fairness and equity are all too important and they want to ensure that all students have equitable opportunities to succeed. So I think that's what this goal and the waiting study is all about. I'll keep my comments brief and largely they're in line with what Jay Nichols said. We didn't rehearse this. But I would say I bump up up top the importance of the consultant. We think that's paramount. Sorry. We think we also agree that there needs to be in perhaps in the bill some necessary input from the stakeholders. If not explicit, it needs to be some way added. I think hearing from the field is important. They've got to implement any of these studies. And so I think that's just a necessary part of it. I have two questions. I just want to make sure, Jim, you have that, right? You have that we really want that in. That's terrific. Okay, thanks. Sorry, Jeff. No worries. Six meetings is ambitious. I'll just, I'll say C number one above, which is higher the best consultant you possibly can. Yeah. In that regard. And maybe he or she could do it in six meetings. That would, I'll be all the more impressed. I think that's the point where we do need to return to. I think committee members need to and take everyone's advice here. I think we probably need to bump that up. It's sort of a, there's no art to this. It's, but I'm guessing it's going to be closer to 10 to 12 possibly. And I hope committee members will give some thought to that because one of them, God knows this not going to be me, is going to be on that committee. It's the last thing I do. But yeah, I think it will be, somebody from this committee will be there. So. And one last point, and I think it was discussed earlier by Senator Chittenden, but I think you could add to the list of questions, a recommendation from the task force for a method to moderate the negative effects of changing the weights. So in other words, there will be an impact. There will be winners and losers. There always are. When Act 60 was enacted predates my tenure at Vermont NEA, but there are winners and losers. Act 68, the same thing. And the way I was here when Act 68 was passed, and there are ways to moderate it, I'll say that, so that the effects on those who lose in the long run are moderated. So in Act 46, for example, there were carrots and applied and used. And in reverse here, you could use some perhaps of the federal monies to alter, or excuse me, moderate the effects of changing the weights. There are ways to do it. And I just think the data should be included as one of the questions that the task force examines. I think it's great. There's a recommendation about it. Mr. Demeray, do you have that? You've been able to capture that. Okay, great. Thank you. Great. And with that, I will conclude with, again, where I started, we support this version with some suggested modifications, but I think it's a good approach. And certainly getting it right is very important for students and school employees, school boards, everybody, administrators, they all want to get it. We all want to get it right, I think. And I think we agree with the management folks here who have testified earlier. So any questions, happy to answer them. Thank you. Senator Persley. My question is, I don't know if we have more witnesses, but for at least the witnesses that we had, my experience on this committee is any kind of committee we've had, these witnesses are all on the committees. And one thing that reading through the bill, I noticed it's legislators and executive branch, but we don't have the NEA, the school board association, superintendents association on there. And I wondered if that was on purpose or if people don't want to be on there, or I just thought, instead of saying, we need to go get their input, why not have those three organizations on the committee or on the task force. So it's a great question. And I have a response, but it looks like Mr. Nichols does as well. Yeah, I don't think that we should be on there. And the reason is we're membership driven organizations, all four of us represent our members and our members are gonna be impacted in different ways on this. So I think our input should be given to help you understand some of the facts, what it might look like on the ground, but in terms of actually making the final decisions, I think it has to be the administration and general assembly. So in my first test, my written testimony, you're gonna see that I talked a little bit about that, that I don't think in this case, we should be part of that. Yeah, I don't have anything to add. I, when making up, again, it was just taking a number of things into consideration, just trying to put this forward, but it was shared with me also, yep. It's some individuals felt as though that it could get tricky and complicated. So leave it the way we designed it. Please, Mr. Senator, first, Mr. First. Well, go ahead, Jeff, if you're gonna respond to that. Yeah, I would add to what Jay said is that we are membership organizations and certainly capable of advocating on behalf of our members, as you probably know, and we're not bashful at times. And certainly when it comes to equitable funding, I think we all agree. And if something's going afield, we'll be certain to speak up. But I agree with Jay that we do come out of it very differently in some places. Now, that makes sense. Just two other comments. One comment was I don't see Zaglowski's written comments posted, but I don't know if that's just the delay in the time because I didn't want to look at those. But just a general comment about the comments about winners and losers, and maybe I'd feel differently if I lived through the Act 60 and the tax increases that sometimes fell, but I see it as not that, even though taxes will change, since it's gonna benefit all schools, and all students are going to be better educated. So I just advise us try to avoid falling into the trap of thinking of it as winners and losers and thinking that this is gonna be better for the whole state and we're gonna have better educated students. So even if my town is gonna pay more in taxes, just as Act 60 helped for the equity, that we're winning if we have a more equitable system. You're muted, Senator Campion. Senator Kittendon. I see Senator Lyons has her hand, but really quick to that point, Senator Pursik, I couldn't agree with you more, but my caution that I've raised a couple of times is that if we don't do this right and we throw this out the communities too quickly, that doesn't translate, and they acknowledge this in the waiting study report, that doesn't mean the communities are gonna, the losers as we've been framing them are gonna approve these much higher school budgets. So it will effectively not get approved. They'll have to slash to the bone and then we'll reduce the funding to the head fund. I'm still learning how this yield thing works, but what I'm saying is that we need a thoughtful implementation plan because there are negative adverse consequences that communities that don't approve these massive hikes to their tax rates will affect the entire state, a vicious cycle. So that's why I'm really supportive of the direction we're going in to get this right and to be thoughtful on that point. Senator Lyons, I'm sorry to have jumped in front of you. No, that's good. I like your comments. I will, I would just wanna step back to Act 60 and I was chairing a select board of a gold town at the time. My personal reaction to the passage of Act 60 because I was chairing my select board was good grief. They're pulling the rug out from under us because we had planned for accelerated development to offset costs, educational costs. So there's a lot of stuff going on right now in schools that may be sort of uncovered as the waiting standard, waiting changes. So I do think that having something in there that recognizes both the positive and the negative is important. Look at the people working on this, including us are pretty isolated from the taxpayer, even though we are definitely, I shouldn't say that because we hear from our constituents all the time, but our constituents are not directly linked to what the effect of these changes will be. And so the comment about having local people, local boards, local folks involved and in the process is very important. Otherwise, it's gonna hit them square between the eyes. I just really, I do think that the comment about moderating negative effects, I don't know, maybe that's the wrong way to say it, but looking, there's gotta be a way to say gradual implementation to offset losses. I don't know what you say, but at least there will be something there to fall back on when we hear back from folks who are negatively affected. And by the way, I do like equitable educational funding. Mr. Nichols. Yeah, I think you already say that in this draft of the bill on page two, section four. It says recommend how to transition to the new weights to promote equity and ease the financial impact on school districts during the transition to the new weights, including the availability use of federal funding during this transition. So I think that's where that nexus comes in. All right, sounds good. As long as it's clear to the group that's working on it. Speaking of that, our colleagues, this is a lift. This is a serious conversation. Again, I put in six meetings to get a conversation going. Seems like it warrants doubling that. There's always the possibility that people don't need to meet, but better to give people the opportunity and the time to do the work. And I'm wondering if committee members have a response to that, as well as have we given enough direction around qualifications that we would like to implement the PUPE guide. If you look on page four at the bottom, we're looking for an appropriation also to for consultant expenses. And we're not giving any real qualifications there. And I think, Jim, if you would maybe work with me, but we need to, we want somebody who knows this work, who has a history in this work. And I'm sure the committee will move in that direction, but I think it warrants just pulling that this isn't, not that anybody on the committee would, this isn't of course a political position. This is somebody that has this kind of experience that is equipped to make these kinds of decisions and guide the work. I can draft that. And colleagues and others, please, others, witnesses here, do people feel more comfortable with 12 meetings? Mr. Fannin? Okay. Yes. Okay. Others? Ms. Siglowski, you're good with meeting numbers. Yes, thank you. Been around for that, this kind of thing. Okay, good. Thank you. Okay. So it sounds like a next step would be to see a new draft tomorrow that works for Mr. Demeray, incorporating what we've heard today in going through this with a goal of trying to advance something on Friday that works for us and then having appropriations take some time with it next week. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome to be with us. Thank you. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Really appreciate it. Thank you.