 This is Senate appropriations and we're taking up several bills, one is we were holding pending review and a recommendation from Senate education and so that's H 183 and we have Michelle Charles here to run through the amendment we had already just to remind committee members. We had put the funding for the forensic nursing piece already in the budget, which was part of that bill. I think Senator Sears referenced that as well. And so what we have now is possibly a small amount of money I think in the vicinity of 12,000 that's associated with a commission or study group or whatever so that's what Michelle you're going to present to us today. Okay, thank you so if you would review this recommendation and what the Senate Education Committee is has decided how they want to move forward with that section of the bill. And does everyone have a copy of this amendment. It's from Senator Lyons campion shittin and put virtually in Taranzini dated May 7. That's my initials up at the top. Is it on our web page. It's on the web page and I also sent it as a PDF earlier today. Oh okay good. And so you might recall that last week when you took up H 183 183 and you just you did discuss this a little bit as to because the House bill had this appropriation in it. Senate judiciary removed the council, along with the appropriation and then with the forensic nursing money going into the budget. And I'm kind of like why is this even here because there's no appropriation in it and so we did talk about the council. What it was is there was a previous task force in which there were two legislative members including Senator brief and they had recommended the establishment of this larger council to continue the work and to meet four times a year to collaborate on basically sharing information amongst all the different campuses and kind of sharing best practices. And so, so it's just the Senate education made several just little small tweaks to the language with regard to membership things that they added an additional college students changed the duties just a little bit after listening to UVM, but I think the primary differences for your purposes or that did shorten the, the length of the council before it was a seven year repeal. We thought that was kind of a long. It's now four years so it is order. And as I mentioned, there's there, they're only permitted to meet four times a year staffed by the network against domestic and sexual violence and that was really kind of a result of they're not being an obvious body to staff it. There's legislators or such on that committee and the network volunteered to do it and so the money. Put the money in going to the center for crime victim services that would then issue it as a grant to the network because house appropriations didn't want the money going directly to the network because it's not a state entity. And so what you have, you have the creation of the of the council and section six in our alliance amendment you have the sunset after four years in section seven. And then for the appropriations, it's broken into two pieces, one is subsection a for staffing. And so that's for FY 22 so for four meetings. And then subsection B is the appropriation for per diems and expenses, I will note there that house appropriations established that number based on there being two students on the council. And they thought that those would probably be the only folks who are members of the council who wouldn't otherwise be compensated for their attendance at that meeting. Senate education did add at the request of Senate judiciary, one more student and so you might want to consider whether or not that that number for in subsection B and section eight should be raised in consideration of adding an additional student. Then section nine is the effective date section, and that has the council and the appropriation taking effect on passage and the remaining sections continue to take effect on on July 1. And I do have a thought about, is there a 12. Is there, I can't find the amendment I'm sorry I'm trying to go through all of Chrissy's emails and I've got the other bills but I don't have this amendment you like me to put it up on the screen when it be helpful or do you not like doing that. Maybe if we can my question is, is there a specific amount is it 12,000, or is it just that they will be compensated consistent with for staffing it's 11,990 dollars and for per diems and expenses, it's $1,010 and so it is 13,000 total. 13. That that 1,020. If we add an extra student should be 1520 right. Well, no, I think there's there may you're estimating more than the students in the in that 1020 or 1010 or whatever. Well, appropriate house appropriations was was just counting on there being two people who would request per diems and expenses assuming it would be the students because everything else is doing it as part of their other day job. So we're talking about 600 them. And by two is five. It's five. I rounded it up to 600 Bobby. I'm rounding down. We either do 1500 or 1800. I definitely think we should discuss for another hour. All afternoon. Stephanie, do you have a thought. I don't know. Let's see I don't know why we have to go from 15 to 18 we could simply go to 1600 and let it go. I'm fine with me. I hate, which is a little bit enough but they'll have some change left. All right, so this is, this is general fund. So, I'm not following I'm sorry I'm not quite following that I was doing something else but I'm sorry about that. That is this for the Council. Council. So the on the house side is is is remaining is 13,000. Because the house bill came out with 53,000 we've moved 40 for the forensic nurse. So the appropriation that's in now is you're saying is it 1800 or 12,000. We, because you're adding one more student, the question is whether the, the, the 13,000 needs to be increased a bit to accommodate the additional cost of the per diem and expenses of that student. So two, two unpaid people was 1,020. Then 2010 for two, then, then if we add another one the question becomes, do we, we need to add a bit more money. So that we have the funding for that additional student. I mean, I think we can actually go with the 13,000 that's, that's available. And then, you know, if there's a, if there's a need to fund more, it's a very small budget adjustment item. Yeah, you know, okay. So what you're saying is, let it let it go with the addition, and that for this small amount if it's necessary to do a budget adjustment for it, if it can't be accommodated then we'll deal with it. We support section eight for $13,000. Okay. So, and we don't need to do anything to amend it because that's already in the bill that it came over from the house. Is that appropriation is still remaining in the amendments, Michelle. No, it's so it, it, the way the Senate judiciary had jurisdiction and they voted it out without the appropriation and so now you have it without the appropriation, but Senate judiciary asked Senate Ed to take it up informally. They are recommending adding the council back in with the appropriation so it's a floor amendment from all the members of Senate. Okay, so we never took. Yeah. All right, so we never officially took the money out. It got taken out put back in before it came really before we're acting on it. So the Senate and amendment at 13,000 right now or is it at a different number. It is, but I just want to make clear that House, I mean Senate had jurisdiction so the bill, you know, like as the amendment has come to you there is no. And it's going to be on the floor that this individual instance of amendment is going to propose to amend the judiciary report and then, once that gets it will include the money. Yes. So we just, we could just say as the appropriations committee we approve the expenditure. You know the appropriation of 13,000 as included in the amendment, because that will get voted on first then the Education Committee amendment. I don't know. I don't know I can, I can check with the Senate Secretary but because it's not a committee amendment it's a individual instance so they'll go to judiciary then they'll go to appropriations but I can see if you can take the other one in between. Okay, well we'll figure that out I think we want to move the bill favorably with that with the provision. We're going to do appropriate 13,000, which the House had already done. It's already counted for him and already accounted for and on the bottom line. Why don't I just wing it on the floor and see what. All right, so I'm going to suggest that we take a vote and we have a motion to to. Report the Education Committee amendment. Right, which would have a 1213 thousand dollar appropriation so. Okay I've just had all my whole file fall on the floor and then we'll vote the bill out separately. Because we have to vote the bill out. Yeah, I guess in this case we kind of have to because we're not amending the bill. Yes, I guess we'll have to do with two steps so we have a motion to. Support education education amendment with a carries a 13,000 dollar appropriation that motion's been made by Senator Sears and a seconded by. Senator star. Senator star. All right, unless it's further discussion will vote on on supporting the appropriation that will be reflected in the Senate Ed amendment. Senator ballot. Senator yeah. Oh, there she is. I'm here. I'm going to be on screen in just a couple minutes. So I'm wondering if I can vote yes and then show you on screen that I'm voting yes. I'm sure we can do that. I will come come back to you once you're visible. Thank you. Okay, Senator Baruthi. Yes. Senator Nick. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator star. Yes. Senator Westman. Yes. Senator Kitchell. Yes. Okay I believe that'll be seven oh once Senator Ballant is on the screen. All right, so now we need a motion to move the bill favorably. I'll move that. Okay, it's a move by Senator star seconded by Senator Baruth. We will vote now. Senator ballot. Same situation. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator nitka. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator star. Yes. Senator Westman. Yes. And Senator Kitchell. Yes. And Senators. Who's the reporter? Senator Sears. Okay. All right. Can I just get a little clarity for the Senate Secretary's office? So you know, I do my email. I'm going to say Senator appropriations has voted out each 183 favorably. As amended by Senate judiciary. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Technically correct. It's from individuals, right? Yeah. Well, that's what confuses everything. But yeah, I can send them. I can send a separate email to, uh, to Bloomer and copy everybody. Because I think that the members of the, of the amendments are going to want to kind of know what the. I would say that's fine. Chrissy and I can follow up. Okay. Great. I'm going to see you on mine as well. Okay. And then Senator Sears is a reporter and we'll confirm the. I'll vote. Thank you. Okay. Um, Thanks. Now our next, um, Bill is H123. H122. And I'm going to get back to you. I'm sorry. Senator Kitchell. Yes. Would you like me to send Senator White's note that had a little brief explanation? Yeah, that would be good. Um, the emails are coming in so fast. Yeah. I'm having to scroll through. Um, Perfect. I'll send it right now. So everyone's got it. Copy. Okay. You shall be receiving an email from me any seconds. Right. What's the appropriation? I don't see any. Hey, Stephanie. Yeah. Am I right that the 10 million in. PCB. Testing in the contingency fund is general fund. Yeah. The money we put into the environmental contingency fund. Is it is general fund that it's not 10 million for PCB. It's five million. Yeah. Sorry. Short handing there. But it is, it is general fund. Okay. Um, It may be. And even the guidance, something that we want. You know, can you remind me? So it goes into the contingency fund. And then does it move from there to Department of Health? No, the 500,000 to the Department of Health is directly appropriated now in your bill. Okay. So, so it's actually 9.5. They went into the contingency fund because 500 went directly to the Department of Health and 4.5 of that 9.5. Is dedicated to the PCB testing through an hour. Through an hour, right? Yeah. Okay. We couldn't use anchor funds for that testing. We didn't think so because it's a preexisting pre pandemic. Um, peace. I'm not sure if the guidance that we got yesterday opens it up or not. I'll check with folks, but. Um, at this point, we don't. We don't think so. So what we have. Here is the email from Jeanette White that talks about local emergency planning. And I guess Stephanie, you're familiar with this. It's not new money. It's just how it's going out. Uh, let me. Let me get into my inbox. I'm in the wrong spot here. Okay. So it's the only money is it's a project in the Haskem fund for LEPC else's. It's normally divided up, but now it'll be devoted to statewide in its entirety. It's not new money. They just start transitioning it to a single LEPC. And I'm just getting caught up. I'm just getting caught up. This is the first time I'm seeing this issue. It says. Speak to us about this. She is. She's in another committee and trying to get her to come on over now. And then she's also going to speak to one 35. Senator Polina. All right. And one 35 is. So. One 35. This. This one that we're on is they want to. Is it the 52,000 they want to. Yeah, rather than. They're just putting it all into one fund, I guess. Yeah. And one 35 is the state ethics commission. Yeah. And they want an attorney and they've got the money in the budget. Okay. So. I'm really just an apology. She got stuck in and walk through. And she's going to be as soon as she can, but it sounds like you might be able to carry on without her. It's a smaller appropriation. But I'll put it for you. All right. Well, what we know is what Senator White said, which was that she didn't think it was necessary that. If she could not. She's doing some sticky stuff with the broadband. I don't know what that means. Oh, that was the public records. Was that it? Oh, yeah. Okay. So this is the annual budget that's normally divided between 13. We'll now be devoted to the statewide. And my question is, does this change the appropriation at all? How are we appropriating this money out? It's probably within the NR or actually the emergency management budget. As a grant to go out. It's probably embedded in there. Because this is emerging. See response. It doesn't look like it's new money. It looks like it's changing the way we would. You know, Distribute an existing. Appropriation. An existing amount of money within the agency. Yeah, that's all I can see. It doesn't change any money. It's just that it's going. And as I, when I look. Through this, I don't see any. Anything that would add, you know. I'm scrolling through the, the state. Emergency response commission. Is where the special. There's creative. And then the locals have to match it with a 25%. Right. It says this is not new money, but we'll just trans. Transition to a single LEPC. So. And so it actually still is actually going out when you get to page 13. 16. That's what's a little bit confusing. So it's. It's still being distributed. It starts as an annual grant from the commissioner of public safety, the total annual grant amount. And it's special fund dollars. It looks like it's sort of residual of the old. Radiological emergency response plan funds. But the total. It's still going to be divided up. So it's still going to be divided up. It's going to be divided up. And by the total annual brand amount equally among the local. So it's still going out to the local emergency planning commissions. Yeah. Not to exceed 52,000. Yeah. But it says it'll normally was divided up, but now it's going to go through a statewide. Something. But it says it's going to be. An amount equal. To the local emergency planning committees. So I guess everybody's going to get the same amount. Well, it certainly doesn't have any impact on the spending because it's just how. An existing. A level of. Amount of money is. Distributed. So do we want to. And they still have 25% local match grant requirement. Unless it's waived. By the state commission. All right. So we're kind of. We don't have the Ledge Council person and we don't have the reporter of the bill. So. What we have is. What seems to be a fairly modest amount of money. With language that would just. Change how it is distributed. So. I don't know. The match is probably still unchanged. I don't know. And. So do we want to. I would move. S1. Two has received. Okay. Just out of curiosity, did it need to come to us? Well, there's money in it. Well, but I mean, if. If it needs to come to us, if it needs to come to us, if the amounts are unchanged. Still needs to come to us, rich. Yep. It has to come to us. Okay. I think because it says that the commissioner shall. Give out grants not to exceed. Probably the triggering piece, but I'll see if it went through the. That's all right. I was just curious. Right. So a center star has moved the. Bill favorably as received. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Second. All second. Okay. Senator Westman. All right. So we're going to. Operate here somewhat on. Well, for 52,000. And there is section. The. There's a per diem on page. One. The, the climate council piece. And that may have triggered it as well. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about the Vermont climate council. Right. But it gives it moves the per diem up from 50 to a hundred. And it's subject to available budgeted. Dollars. So that's. I skipped right over that. First amendment. Is ever. Are all. Councils like that or anything. Moving to 100. Or is that just. It's just the Vermont climate council that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It's a statutory. $50 a day to $100 a day for those that aren't. Why is that happening? Is there a special reason? And that's the second time we're doing that. Yeah. We did it for 250. Just last week for. And it was. Because of the. The amount of time that was going to take with. From people with very specialized body of knowledge. That was. That was. Yeah. I mean, the, the logic behind keeping everybody at 50 has always been. Everybody's at 50. Yeah. Because I know when we did the liquor and lottery. There was. You know, Pressure to move on per diems. For them. So we're, we're entering a world. I fear where we're going to have to up the per diem for everybody. So we're going to have to move on per diems. And we're going to have to distinguish. Those. Positions that require people with a. Very specialized body of knowledge or skills or information. That you might not have to have. For some boards, but. Was that in the house past version? No, it's part of the amendment from Senate. And it's, it's, it's limited to one year. It's limited to. FY 22. It's only this, this bump in the per diem isn't permanent for the climate council. It's only until June 2022. It says, you know, I think what we're running into though, and it's dangerous. I think it's Orwellian. You know, some groups are more equal than other. All groups are equal, but some are more equal than others. I think it's a dangerous road to be going down. I would guess that people on the transportation board feel that they're very important. And look at control board and etc. It's just leave it the way it is for everybody else, except for the broadband people. Yeah, I don't understand the, the bump for one year. Then maybe we're all, all we're doing is circular discussion because we don't have anybody to testify. And I think that perhaps. The chair's description and the focus on the, just the distribution. Of. Of this bill. This bill is obviously more than just putting out the 52. I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't be making a decision on it until we have additional information as to what is the justification because we're absolutely. Opening the door around everyone arguing that everybody's board should be compensated at a higher level and, and in some ways it, it begs a much larger discussion around. Equity this ad hoc approach to. To the per diems is troublesome at best. I've always felt that senators deserve more than house members. Just be a good time to raise that issue. No. It isn't believing it is. We deserve more. I would draw that motion, madam chair. I think we need to, and I think we need to have an explanation as to why. This, this. We're departing from the $50 per day. Yeah. Especially since the house. I suspect, for example, the human services board. Yeah. Hugely complicated in the cases that are coming before that. So I. I. But this came from government operations and they should be particularly attuned to the whole precedent that's being set here. Money is no object in that room. Well, you know, maybe the $50 a day is it really is. Maybe it does need to be looked at, but it should be looked at. I think in a much more systematic way, rather than ad hoc arguments about this particular board requires it because of this versus the 50 for everybody else. So I, I'm not prepared. I think in light of that comment, Stephanie, in terms of the change. For us to simply move it. Because that. It's a fairly significant policy. Or are done. It's well, a policy. Discussion, but also that comes with a financial implication. Big plan. 100% increase. Well, you know, when you deal with small numbers, Bobby, your percentages can really move. I've served for 70, 60 years on different boards and for the first 40 never got a dime. And I'm 50 would look good to you. I felt good about it. Well, if you want to serve, you shouldn't have to be paid to serve. You should do it because you want to do it. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That could carry over to us, Bobby. Yeah, Bobby. We don't want to hamster rates. You don't want. New Hampshire. Every two years. So we've decided we're not voting on that. We have Senator Ballin here. Do you want to put your vote in in person on H 183. Yes, please. Okay. And then one 22, we're not moving on. Oh, and, uh, Becca, we also did the education amendment. Yeah. I assume you're yes on that. In the affirmative. Yes. Um, So, um, One 22, I think we should. Oh, and we're going to need more testimony. Yep. All right. So, um, We're going to have to break because I have, I have to, I don't think we can do anything more today in seven minutes. Okay. Um, Stephanie are, so we, we've only moved. I've lost track. We moved the one bill. 183. Yes. Uh, one 22 we're holding. One 35. Is. Anthony Polina was coming in on, and now it's adding an attorney to the ethics commission. Yep. And I did send him a note telling him when we schedule, Senator Polina and Amaran. She can come back. I'll get them both to come back in on one 22. And one 34. Oh, one 35. Yeah. And they're, they're both house bills. Correct. Okay. And then there's the miscellaneous tax bill. Did we actually get possession of that? Yes, we do have possession. That's four 36, I believe. And we have Abby and Senator Cummings coming in. If the committee can agree to start it in one tomorrow. It would really help out Senator Cummings. Cause it's something she needs to move. And if we can all meet at one tomorrow, we can get that right out of the gates. Okay. All right. So why don't we adjourn for today with the understanding that tomorrow we're going to start at one o'clock. And we have three bills and that will take care of the, all the bills that we have. Um, refer to us. That's right. Okay. All right. Um, so. Um, I guess, um, we should have a communication back to Senator White, um, asking what is the justification for the increase in the per diem for the climate council. And especially explaining the one year. Bump. Cause I assume then it reverts back to $50. Yes. I think so. The one. That's odd. Yeah. The one 35 bill. There isn't much to that. Well, I don't know. They may have money right now. The question is that building an ongoing base obligation. Yeah. Well, it would be. I have a somewhat similar question about. The miscellaneous ed bill, which hasn't, I don't think has come to us yet. I don't think it has come to us yet. I don't think it has come to us yet. That adds $50,000 for a consultant. For the ethnic studies commission. And, um, so I'm, I'm, that's something we don't typically do either. Is staff out. This is for legal advice. I think. Um, staff out committees. Or change the per diem. So there's a couple of different. Um, terms of exceptional funding for boards and committees. So I don't know. Is that a house? Is that a house bill too? That came over. It's on the calendar. Um, but it's on. I think it's on the notice calendar. What's the number? Uh, I don't remember Alice, but it was, it was at the bottom of the notice calendar, I think. Okay. Well, I'm going to, um, Maybe we can take a look at that too, Phillip. Um, um, Stephanie, if you could maybe have someone mark for all, take a look at that. Since it's related to education, what it is exactly. And what is the funding source. That's 115. Is that it, Phillip? Yeah, I think that's right. Change is an education laws. Yeah. And in there is a $50,000 appropriation to the. Ethnic studies committee. That must have come back from the house then. I think so. Okay. Well, we'll take a look at that as well. So I'm going to adjourn the committee because, um, I have to go on another call in three minutes. And then we have a committee of conference. I gather we haven't. Chrissy, that's still on. It hasn't been canceled yet. It is still not. What time is that? Three o'clock. It will be a relatively short one. I think there's a handful of things that the house can put on the table, but they weren't, didn't have a significant. Okay. So, um, we'll. Tune in at three and wrap up a few more things and then call it a day. And then we'll start tomorrow at one. I mean, we'll tune in today. This committee will tune in today at three.