 So with that said, Jim, you want to walk us through? Sure. I think we'll walk you through this once before. Just quickly so that we peel it out for people. Sure. Okay. So, statement of purpose, to allow the commission to allocate premium in our pocket responsibilities between employers and employees based on the ability of the employee to pay the expenses to permit an arbitrator resolving a dispute for the commission to grow latitude and pass a resolution. The answer is to process the commission to request and receive information necessary for the negotiations. So, section one of page two makes a change on the release time. I have a new G. Let's read it. All right. A school district that employees a member of the commission presents school employees to show grant the commission member a time off as necessary for the member to attend needs of the commission. And section two in the duties of the commission, page three, line six, talking about the premium responsibility. This is the premium responsibility percentages for each plan tier that we may differ among participating employees to reflect and employees' ability to pay based on the amount of the employees' salary. And likewise, on line 12-13, we're talking about pocket expenses. So it says the amount of school employees' pocket expenses for which the school employer and the school employee should be responsible, which may take into account the employees' ability to pay based upon the amount of the employee's salary. Same thing. And then, lastly, on this page, we struck out the language at the very top that has read the school employees' responsibility for pocket expenses for each plan tier should be the same. So that's not sure. I'm not sure anymore. Section three goes with negotiation. And as my result says, on report number one of the year prior to the commencement of bargaining, the commission shall request from the parties the negotiation data and information that it anticipates in the negotiation in a common format. And on report number one of the year of bargaining, the prior shall submit to the commission the information requested. And then section four deals with dispute resolution to change the standard by which the arbitrator makes a decision. Line six reads, the arbitrator or arbitrator shall select one of the last best offers in its entirety without amendment. Next page, new language, comment provided. However, if the arbitrator or arbitrator is determined that the last best offer submitted by book parties are unreasonable and likely to produce undesirable results or to have a long lasting negative impact on the party's political relationship, then the arbitrator or arbitrator's may either, A, select the recommendations made by the tax binder in their entirety, B, selecting the following on an issue by issue basis. One, the last best offer of the reps of the school and two, the last best offer of reps of the school for errors. Jim, just to stop you quickly on line nine. Unreasonable and likely to produce undesirable results. That makes a little more intuitive sense to have a long lasting negative impact on the party's collective bargaining relationship. I'm just thinking, I've almost never seen a collective bargaining situation where both sides weren't predicting that if the other side doesn't go with this, it's really going to destroy our relationship. I mean, that kind of rhetoric is very common. So it seems like in almost any situation that phrasing could be invoked by the arbitrator wanted to, is there a more specific reading of that that I'm looking at, is the term of art somehow? I'm not sure about that. This language, I believe, is lifted from the, either the municipal statute for liberations or the state employees. So this standard, I think, is in law already. Okay. But I have a certain opinion on that. If you wouldn't mind. And also if you would queer Damian on to what extent that, or we could have him come in and testify, in his experience of those two triggers, how often is the second one invoked as opposed to the first? Yeah. Because like I say, it's so common. It's almost, you remember the times when that wasn't the case, when people weren't saying it was destroyed by the fabric of the relationship. Okay. Keep going. Okay. Lastly, section five, News is for employers. It adds a new team by nine to provide the commission with timely information as requested by the commission in the performance duties. I'm just a quick question for any yet. Colin, wasn't there a commonly agreed upon switch to the timeline that both parties were behind? Yes. Am I remembering that? You're referring to the July 1st versus January 1st to its own lines with IRS rules relating to each of these triggers. Correct. I don't see that language here. Since there was agreement and it was in part of the arbitrator's decision regardless of what the arbitrator decided. Okay. No need to make a statutory. Thanks. Okay, good. That was our belief. All right. Any other questions for Jim on the draft? Thank you, Jim. Mr. O'Dell. Yeah. Please join us. So as I said, this draft was produced with a good deal of input from NEA. So you're first on the list to respond to it. The other thing, if I want to make it clear, the original legislation was produced with a plan from Nicole Mace and then the NEA's plan and we put them together. So if you have language suggested from school boards or from other parties, feel free to offer that to us at some point. So we're not exclusively dealing with the language that's here at least theoretically. Perfect. And so what's in the document actually is a bit detailed and does offer some language. So I think it might make sense to just read through it if that's a plea of view. And if you have questions, please let me know. To starters, thank you very much for letting me come today and testify with you. My name is Neil O'Dell. I'm the president of the Remods for Wards Association Board of Directors. Before I share with you the board's position on S226, I'd like to start with our organization's mission and vision. The vision, the vision, the Remods for Wards Association and vision is a state where every student has access to and is engaged in a world-class education where local boards provide student-focused oversight of education systems and where educators, families and communities are engaged partners ensuring that the futures of all Remods children are driven by their aspirations not down by their circumstances. Our mission, the VSBA works to achieve our vision for public education by supporting local and supervisor union boards to be effective trustees for their communities and by providing a strong collective voice for enhancing the cause of public education in Vermont. Just by way of both the background of the VSBA, we have a 24-member board of directors. I think you saw most of them a couple weeks ago. The president, me, past president, and then 22 regional representatives. Two representatives are elected by school board members from each of 11 regions. The VSBA is governed by bylaws, resolutions and policies. And in the absence of a resolution on a particular topic, the VSBA board provides guidance to the VSBA staff. Act 11 required the VSBA to appoint five representatives of school employers to the commission on public school employee health benefits of the employer commissioners. The employer commissioners provided testimony to the senate debt committee, this committee on January 8th, 2020 through their chief negotiator, Joe McNeil, who reported on suggestive modifications to the statewide bargaining process. The items that you'll see here are probably closely aligned with what Joe had presented earlier. First off, concerns about implications of the arbitrator's decision. So for the past five years, school boards have been working to bring school employees health benefits in line with those that are recognized by other reminders. The arbitrator's decision in statewide bargaining reverses that progress and essentially recreates the plan that these employees had in the past, causing some serious cost considerations. Most school employees are better off under this award than in 2017. Compared to health care costs that school employees had under the VHT plan, they now have lower premium costs, lower out-of-pocket costs, no more co-gays, no more first dollar out-of-pocket costs, and deductible amounts that have been held levels since 2018, and more plan options available. So parent-child planning option is now available. So these are our requested additions to S226. Before you leave I would just point out last paragraph, I know you mean it to read negatively, reads very positively to me, and I know you're talking about bringing the benefits in line with those that are recognizable by other reminders, but then you go on to frame it as what we all hope will happen with health care costs, that we're always looking to lower premium costs out-of-pocket costs, and understood that there's a trade-off with taxpayers, but I'll just note that as you frame it, it's kind of a positive result that it seems to me. It is certainly different than what was available prior to the arbitrator's decision. Let me put it this way. You say most school employees are better off under this award than in 2017. So the reverse would be most school employees are worse off under this award than in 2017. And I don't think that you would frame your desired outcome that way. I'm sorry, I didn't follow that. So you're the section is headed, concerns about the implications of the decision. And as a negative implication, you say most school employees are better off than they were in 2017. That seems to me a positive result of the triggers. If you took that in a second, at the expense of the employer or the folks that are paying the taxes and the folks in towns that are supporting these decisions. I mean, I think at the end of the day it comes down to trying to strike the right balance here. I agree. I'm just, I guess pointing out, I don't know who wrote this document, but if I were writing it, I wouldn't have framed it this way because it seems like what you're arguing is that most school employees should be worse off under this award. And I don't think that's what you really need to say. It is not. Good, thank you. So as far as requested additions, the BSB pressed the fund changes to Act 11, which include the modifications suggested by the employer commissioners and a few additional changes identified by the BSBA. These changes should be incorporated into this in order to clarify Act 11 and approve the process. First, under covered employees amend 16 BSA 21012 to clarify that school employee includes all employees of public schools who meet the eligibility threshold established by the statewide benefit. The current language does not include supervisory, confidential and certified employees such as business managers, food service directors, and certified therapists. And this has caused confusion about whether these employees benefits fall within the licensed teachers and administrators for the municipal employees. Secondly, employee representation. We would like to amend 16 BSA 2108 to read four members appointed by the labor organization representing the greatest number of teachers, administrators, and municipal employees in this state provided that at least one of the members shall be a licensed administrator. The current language states that licensed administrators are covered under school employees, but it doesn't provide for their representation on that commission. Well, they could be, right? Correct. Regarding alternates, we'd like to clarify that commission alternates should not be permitted unless both parties agree to include them in the ground rules for the negotiation. Question. Yes. So to be blunt, I thought that NEA started off on bad foot with bringing so many people into the room. I thought that the waters have created friction unnecessarily. A basic point they had, I thought was well taken, which is that as with a jury or with an understudy of a Broadway show, you want to have a replacement door to up on what's happened. So is it the idea that there were five alternates in the room or would school boards object having one or two alternates? I don't know if there would necessarily so I'm not one of the commissioners. I don't know whether or not they would find that terrible, but I think at the very least, they would like the ability to establish that in the ground rules. Those five additional folks showed up with no advanced notice consideration by the employer barters. So you'd prefer that that be a barter rule? Yeah, at least let's have it in the ground rules. Under commission, we would like to strike provisions D, F, and H of 16 BSA 2102. D states that members of the commission may be removed only for cause and that the commission shall adopt rules pursues to 3 BSA 25 to define the basis in process for removal. Since commissioners are appointed for a six year term, which is pretty lengthy, it is important for the appointing bodies to have the ability to remove a member who is just not meeting expectations cause is a pretty strict bar to meet. Yeah, so you mean school boards being able to remove their representatives in EA? F states that commission members shall be entitled to receive per DM compensation and reimbursement of expenses pursuant to 32 BSA 1010. This entitlement wasn't funded by the legislature, thereby burdening the BSBA with the cost. If the legislature is not interested in funding the entitlement then we feel that it should be removed. And then H states that the commission may adopt rules or procedures or both pursuance to 3 BSA chapter 25 is needed to carry out its duties. We feel that the language is unnecessary in the case of this commission which exists for the purpose of collective bargaining. The benefit is my understanding 3 BSA 25 applies to agencies of the government so I would consider the commission to be separate from that and I don't think giving the body the ability to adopt rules to carry out their duties would be appropriate. Moving on to scope of bargaining 6 BSA 20103 by inserting a provision that would require the commission to negotiate a grievance procedure for statewide benefit as well as cash in lieu of health insurance. Act 11 does not contain a mechanism for resolving grievances relating to the interpretation and enforcement of its resulting board or agreement. Potentially conflicting interpretations arising from district by district grievance decisions should be precluded to avoid confusion. Also Act 11 does not explicitly set forth cash in lieu of health insurance as within the duties of the commission. There was disagreement about whether or not the commission could address this topic. Clarifying the statute would allow the commission to negotiate cash in lieu of health insurance which we feel is an important topic to address on a statewide basis when a statewide benefit is being provided. Moving on to timing to amend 16 BSA 2104A1 to indicate that negotiations shall commence no later than October 15 of the year before the process is required to conclude to amend 16 BSA 2105B3A to require the arbitrator to hold a hearing prior to August 15 in the year before the agreement is set to expire and then modify other dates in the act to conform with this timeline. What we found is concluding this process in mid-December is really too late for board members to effectively work on budgets and get our work done at the time just it was really not good. So when you say required the arbitrator to hold a hearing you mean the arbitrator that worked on the previous contract on the contract that's in force? So if the next round of negotiations goes to arbitration we would like that because this time the arbitrator's hearing was so late in the year that by the time the decision finally came out boards were pretty much all the way through the budgeting process and we didn't have time to react then to the cost implications of the agreement. So essentially we would like to move the process up so it gives board members time to incorporate the cost items into their budgets. I think the other benefit too is that it gives the tax commissioner the ability to fold those costs into the December 1st tax letter. So I looked around and noticed we've lost our form I knew that Cory wasn't going to be here didn't know that Jim was going to support any of the doctors. So we can we can continue on just we can't we can't do any official action but continue the testimony. Thank you. Regarding the arbitration panel compensation we would like to amend 16VSA 2104A3B to require that if the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator a panel will be created which shall be constituted as follows one panelist selected by the employer commissioners who is a Vermont resident but is not an employer consultant of the Vermont school words association one panelist selected by the employee commissioners who is a Vermont resident but is not an employer consultant of the Vermont NEA or AFSCME and an arbitrator appointed by the American arbitration association. I have to say this one strikes me because if they can't agree on an arbitrator it's set up here so that an arbitrator will appoint the arbitrator. No, no, no. The current statute allows that if the parties can't agree on an arbitrator that they get the panelist form we're recommending that the composition of that panel. What is it currently? I believe it's an arbitrator selected by the employee bargainers and then a third arbitrator selected by the AAA. I see, so instead of three arbitrators picking the arbitrator we'd here only have one arbitrator. No, so in the current statute allows the employee commissioners to select an arbitrator and then the employer commissioners to select an arbitrator and then the third one I believe is selected by the American Arbitration Association. Right, but that's what I mean is and if it's in the statute now I take responsibility for it. It seems somewhat absurd to if we can't agree on an arbitrator then have three arbitrators agree on an arbitrator. Although in this scenario one would consider these panelists I guess and not necessarily. I think the important aspect of this is that they be employees that be residents of the state of Vermont. I think it's important that we have folks that are on the panel that understand the conditions in our state and to have an arbitrator come from somewhere out in the Midwest with little to no knowledge of Vermont is probably not in our best interest that we ought to have folks that are in tune with the issues and the Well, so and again it's a little confusing but to make sure I understand so we're saying it's parties can't agree on an arbitrator this panel would be formed two of the arbitrators would be Vermont residents who are on this panel panelists and then the other one would be not necessarily a Vermont resident I guess what I'm saying is it's set up so that see the arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitration Association seems likely to essentially take the arbitrator because the other two are going to disagree and so that person is set up as the swing vote, the arbitrator of this dispute so it doesn't really accomplish what you want in that the arbitrator who's going to make the decision practically isn't a Vermont resident still. Does that make sense? Well it does but I think that there are various ways that you could what we don't address here is the procedure of how that panel would operate and I think that there are a couple of sort of commonly used scenarios where the panelists could be part of the hearing could provide input but it's still the arbitrator at the end that makes that final decision. The panelists could not be part of the hearing but provide input based on what they've observed throughout the negotiations but I think the difference here is the panel concept exists in current statute. I think the only change as I'm reading it here is that we would like them to be a Vermont resident. Yeah when we talked about this before I think the concern was that Vermont had such a small pool of arbitrators and maybe this is where we might not be, I don't think that we're recommending that these Vermont residents must be licensed arbitrators they're panelists I guess in this scenario. Okay alright let's keep going. Sure. Regarding arbitration process I'm in 16 BSA 2105 B as follows the representatives of school employees and the representatives of school employers shall submit to the arbitrator or arbitrator as their last best offer on all issues remaining in dispute prior to the arbitration hearing the arbitrator or arbitrator shall select one of the last best offers submitted by the parties prior to the arbitration hearing in its entirety without amendment the parties shall not be permitted to modify their last best offers post hearing which is the scenario I didn't do on this round I tend to think that makes sense curious to hear what NEA says about it Next in reaching a decision the arbitrator or arbitrators shall give weight to the evidence documents written material and arguments presented as well as the following factors the actuarial value of the health benefits for the full term of the award proposed by each party as compared to health plans available to Vermont Health Connect and the percentage increase in education spending that is likely to occur under either party's proposal for the full term of the award as compared to overall economic growth for the state of Vermont the arbitrator or arbitrator shall issue their decision within 30 days after the hearing the decision shall include a full cost estimate for the full term of the award for each the last best offers submitted by the parties and a full explanation of the basis for the decision the cost estimate shall include a breakdown of costs borne by employers and costs borne by employees Joe McNeil was very eloquent on his frustration with the arbitrator's report that there wasn't a great deal of detail is this the attempt to hit that because it seems like the language can even be a little more this makes it sound like he can just submit a series of figures but it seems like what Joe was talking about was figures but also rationale for why he made his decision or she made her decision which might not be made on the cost estimates you know what I mean could be made on other factors it could be we that being one maybe of several things we want to try to get to a situation where we know that the arbitrator considered these factors yeah I guess when I take BNC together it would significantly if I'm the arbitrator and I commit when I'm reading the statute it would significantly change the focus to which of these states of mind not that would be the only consideration but there would be a great deal more direction for that person to decide based on sheer you know the language about percentage increase in education spending along with full confidence and I understand why school boards would want to include that emphasis that benefits to the employees out-of-pocket costs etc so what I'm saying yeah I mean I think later on we you know current statute does note the items that the arbitrators shall give weight to when they make their decision so I mean I think those items are already there but I mean I will say that I mean these items are important to board members they're important to our communities as well I don't want to downplay that at all I mean these are important matters no absolutely it's just a question of what the arbitrator is presented with as the framework produced by statute into the department this is how they should be looking at it so my first blush response to this is that it would if I was an arbitrator it would suggest to me that the legislation was also maybe most concerned with rise in education yeah I guess I would be hopeful that if you I mean we could pick out these two paragraphs but if they're in the context of the full statute then I think it holds different weight and then just in the process that recently concluded the arbitrator permitted the parties to change their last best offers post hearing but did not require them to provide an economic analysis of their final offers the above change would ensure that the arbitrator has all of the evidence necessary to consider the factors set forth in 16 VSA 2105 I think that was part of the issue is that those modified last best offers the economic analysis didn't apply because they were changed item number nine under legislative intent we would like to strike subsection a of H 23 of act 11 it will be it will be confusing for the next arbitrator to have this statement of legislative intent which was intended to address the first round of statewide marketing for health benefits guidance to the arbitrator should be what is currently set forth under 16 VSA 2105 B3B subsection a of H 23 of act 11 states that in recognition of the existing disparities in health care benefits between different supervisory unions and school districts and between different categories of employees within the same supervisory unions and school district is the intent of the general assembly that the commission on public school employee health benefits endeavour to transition school employees and school employers to a more equitable health care coverage statewide in a manner that is fair and practicable for all parties involved I think we've done that the first round of negotiations are now behind us so we would consider that paragraph no longer applies but 16 VSA 2105 B3B does it states in reaching a decision the arbitrator or arbitrator shall give weight to the evidence documents written material and arguments presented as well as the following factors interest and welfare of the public the financial ability of the education fund and school districts across the state to pay for the cost of health care benefits and coverage comparisons of the health care benefits of school employees with the health care benefits of similar employees in the public and private sectors in Vermont the average consumer prices for goods and services commonly known as the cost of living and prior and existing health care benefits and coverage for school employees regarding compensation for commissioners and commission expenses we feel that the legislature should appropriate sufficient funds to cover the cost of this including but not limited to the cost of commissioners per diem and expenses the fiscal analysis mediator fact finder arbitrator and attorneys fees all of which are estimated to be about $175,000 for the VSBA and now split costs right which was between NEA and no so my understanding these costs were the costs that were borne by the VSBA or for the analysis that was done for both parties for the commission as a whole oh I see this one this was for the employer commissioners so the VVSA paid for the arbitrator for example 100% no as clarification I'm sorry I didn't think did the BSBA pay 100% of the arbitrator fees no the arbitrator and mediator fact finder those were split between parties amount that's here is include BSBA's portion right but in the current statute calls on them to split those right not per diem but arbitrator etc yes yes I think we're not likely to be able to change that just from my discussions with Jane Kitchell but I do know that Nicole May's contacted me about per diems and I did forward something to Jane Kitchell about that and she seemed as though that was something that they were open to so the 175,000 which would become 50 with NEA's side it's a likely understood it's a cost and our organization is relatively small and then finally feedback on 226 as it was introduced in section one the BSBA is not opposed to the proposed change which requires a school district that employs a member of the commission to grant the commission member time off to attend meetings but we do want to note that there are associated costs to the school district employers including a not limited to substitute pay to cover those teachers that are not going to be at the school at that time so if the committee is considering this change then we also think that equal consideration should be given to appropriating sufficient funds to cover the costs of the employer commissioners per diem and expenses in section two to support the proposed change which would allow premium responsibility percentage for each plan to differ among participating employees based on the amount of the employee's salary this change would add a new administrative burden to school districts but furthermore an employee's salary may not be an accurate indicator of an ability to pay section three BSBA does not support the proposed change which would impose strict timelines and reporting orders on school districts especially in the middle of budget season which for most of us is late fall to February there will be no need to impose the reporting requirements in this time period if the timeline change as we set forth early in the document is agreed to and then finally in section four BSBA does not support the proposed changes allowing the arbitrators to select the recommendations of the fact finder or select among the last best offers which both discourage settlement and make the process less predictable rather BSBA supports adding an arbitration panel as recommended in seven above having Vermonters on the panel will ensure that the reward reflects the best interests of Vermont so maybe I was just understanding is it to answer the panel question again yeah maybe I was can I wonder if I can take a look can we look at the existing statute and the language there regarding the panel do you mean instead of having a single arbitrator who would have a panel of three that would be arbitrated similar to what's in the existing statute our change though is that that panel of three of the two of them the ones that were appointed by the employee commission and the ones appointed by the employer commission be Vermont residents so I think I understand so is it fair to say that of the four sections after 2006 with the caveat that it's a cost to local schools to be able to allow those folks out of the building and you know I quite frankly my job as a school board members to ensure that I've got the best teachers in front of my kids every day and this commission was a time intensive effort and so that would have a new impact on my local schools here you say if the committee's considering changing other expenses you're including substitute that that's not typically how we think about expenses no I think I'm considering in the context of what we had proposed earlier in this document about the legislature covering per DM expenses I have a very hard time seeing the appropriations committee agreeing to everything except for the DM expenses certainly not substitute teacher costs or mediator costs or particular costs I I don't want to speak for them but I feel that I know them well now if substitute pay was not at issue if the draft called for the state to pick up per DM and expenses alone as traditionally understood are you then in agreement for section one I don't want to give that some consideration before I come into that alright well I appreciate that set it up personally on the section three on the timelines is the concern the dates if the dates were different would there be a chance that the SBA would support it or is it just the requirement that they submit the data at the problem no I think if we're looking at a timeline that allows us to get all of this done in time for school board budgeting then some of the dates previously are less of an issue for us because they don't fall within our typical budget cycle where we've really crunched for resources and our business managers are flat out trying to get budgets done I'll keep for August or September yep the high Jeff France no I don't to the contrary Jeffrey Francis from our superintendent association I corresponded with Senator Perch like because the first thing I did when I was invited to testify was check in with him with regard to the provisions of 226 to understand the basis for the provisions and the reason that I did that as was the theme and Neil O'Dell's testimony the principal parties of interest here are the employer commissioners as represented by VSBA in general and the employee commissioners as represented by the Vermont NEA in general so in terms of the superintendent's association I wasn't sure how to formulate a perspective and maybe wrong about this but I think that if I gave any testimony in the lead up to the passage of this new collective bargaining construct it was on a very very limited basis because it was mostly the VSBA and Vermont NEA but nevertheless I thought because I had the bill at hand it would be useful to at least share some perspectives and I want to indicate that I have not had the benefit of conferring with VSBA members about it but what I will say is that when the current construct was enacted I wouldn't say it was confusing to superintendents but they recognized that they were in a role of supporting management at some level in the negotiations process while they were represented by the employee commissioners so that was navigable because of the way the law rolled out but it was something of a role change in terms of how superintendents and some other administrators participate in the collective bargaining process so I just wanted to open with that the reason that I communicated with Senator Perchlich was because I thought it was a simple no relatively straight forward bill six pages four provisions I think that the testimony from the VSBA indicates that there's actually more complexities to that and I understand and appreciate your comment that you'd like to get consensus on any changes as those changes are made whether that is achievable or not and whether or not that's conditional to moving the bill forward remains to be seen but I respected the fact that you said that with the copy out that we did with Act 11 there was one issue that the Education Committee thought was crucial that was the re-balancing of the idea so we went ahead without consensus on that piece but everything else had consensus it might be that we take one of the VSBA's items that the NEA can't agree to and we move forward with that because it seems common sense we can't agree with their view of it or vice versa we might move ahead with an NEA proposal that seems non-controversial to us but that the VSBA is in need of a way I understand that okay so that's helpful thank you so given my ability to participate in this I've focused really in three specific areas so the first area that I was interested in had to do with a section in the Provision 2 which talked about premium responsibility percentages differing in order to reflect an employee's ability to pay this is page 3 and when I asked Senator Perchelick about that and I have not had a chance to circle back with him I'm sorry he's not here to respond so let me read to you what he wrote back to me and I'd do it whether it's here or not he said allocating premium and out-of-pocket payments based on the ability of the employee to pay my understanding is that this was expressly allowed in the last negotiations but not going forward I wanted to allow this option to be considered in future negotiations as I thought it was a fair component of the prior negotiations that's contrary to my recollection because I thought it was not allowed in the last negotiations I think it is allowed I think Jim so Jeff actually under session law it's permissible to have two different premium out-of-pocket expenses for licensed employees and a different one for unlicensed employees that stops after right so in the first place contract and that was actually the language around that was called last change that we made which was on the coal mace suggestion it was meant to be a one-time thing NEA before we passed Act 11 indicated that they would like it to go forward school boards indicated from the get-go to be one the compromise I think was having two steps first contract was allowed, second contract is that agree on that? my memory is that it was the session law provision was an understanding appreciation by all sides there was a teacher's licensed personnel were much closer together versus the unlicensed folks their disparity in what they had for health insurance and how they pay for very different across the board so we needed to acknowledge that that's what we allowed for the separation we came in last year seeking to do what we're doing now Nicole said it's too early we shouldn't make the changes let's go through one round of bargaining and that's what we're back here as we said we would be so my memory is we understood the differences and just thought it was necessary to address that in one time only in session law but there was no appreciation for what I would call income sensitivity going forward it was all an appreciation for the immediacy of the differences but now here there's an acknowledged attempt to try to make it going forward yeah so I'd say two things about that the first thing I would say is I to the extent that I was privy to any of that I've forgotten it and I don't believe I was privy to any of it and secondly the description that Jeff Fanon just gave in terms of the explanation I would say he's not consistent with the answer that I got from Senator Parchek where he says my understanding is that this was expressly allowed in the last negotiations but not going forward I think the potential for misunderstanding or confusion based on that rather complex explanation is not consistent with what even his understanding may be so I think that would be worthwhile checking in on but let's assume that that was something that you wanted to pursue and I think that if you did want to pursue it I'd have two categories of interest one is should you pursue it and secondly if you were inclined to pursue it I would make some preliminary points and these are what I would say one is that ability to pay has a variety of definitions or considerations that could extend from individual outcome to household outcome to individual participant circumstance to wealth versus income so the reason that tax structures are complex is because you try to have tax structures that are reflective of for example progressivity or some other basis and when you think about ability to pay it's more than salary I would say in nearly every case the other thing that I would say is that if you go down that road it's important to keep in mind that folks I think will respond particularly outside the within every employee compensation relationship what I came up with my own term here and the term is the law of desiring to remain whole so if you put premiums on a sliding scale you'd see employees respond in terms of their own individual negotiations or contractual negotiations trying to not suffer economic disadvantage on the basis of that calculation even if the premise was to make health insurance more affordable for those folks who are less well compensated which may be a laudable goal but I think in an environment where we have concerns about the cost of education you would expect that if somebody's premium share increased when they did a salary negotiation they'd be looking to make that up I think that's just human nature would need to be considered and then the third thing that I would suggest and I'm looking at this in terms of my thought process from an administrator's perspective so what occurred to me immediately is that most administrators are on a 260 day contract and many teachers are on a 190 day contract so there's a multiplier differential so if you consider 260 days versus 190 days that multiplier is 1.36 so if you had a teacher who was earning $70,000 and you applied that multiplier that salary would convert to $95,000 so why do I say that not necessarily because I think there's a one-to-one comparison but when you consider this as a matter of public policy it is a factor that you need to think about because it's a factor that would be brought to the contractual salary negotiations for anybody who's affected by this so it's a long-winded way of saying it's not as straightforward as saying salary is a reflection of ability to pay so that's the first point I wanted to make the second point I wanted to make goes to the testimony of the VSBA and the first thing that I said which is the VSBA's recommendation that one member of the employee representation be a licensed administrator and I think that the usefulness of that consideration goes to the conversation we just had which is if there was going to be negotiation around sliding scale premium payments I think it would be fair to have an administrator informing the employee side of the conversation with regard to their perspective and that would be reflective of the fact that folks would maintain as a class I think that administrators are generally higher compensated in terms of straight dollar amounts even if you leave out that factor that I just talked about so if we're going to get into that kind of negotiation and perhaps even if we want are not if there is a subset of the employees who are administrators then it seems reasonable that one member of employee representation ought to be an administrator this is just an endorsement of that concept so I wasn't around when all of this soup was made but I and I didn't realize until we started digging into it a couple weeks ago that administrators were actually included including superintendents are included in these the negotiations and I find that odd in and of itself that superintendents are included because as a former school board member we negotiated the contract with our own superintendent the school board and the superintendent and that included his health insurance and I find it odd that they would have it as part of this and it also puts the superintendents in this awkward position of having to be both on both sides because in negotiations for salary back at the district level then he or she is going to be working with the school board to negotiate salary after anyway I feel it seems to me like this structure is awkward for superintendents right and I'm just wondering if in general you think that is true or if you think this works you know I'm to be honest with you I've not thought about whether it works or not I've actually derived a fair amount of pleasure and gratification from the fact that I haven't been involved in this process the way they all have but I see your point I think that if that's a question that's going to get raised at any level it is the proverbial you know loose thread on a ball of yarn because the minute you talk about superintendents there's also legitimacy to talking about other central office administrators I understand that but the superintendent is the one person where the school board themselves is actually negotiating with it do in the whole do you want to keep this guy and how much should we pay I agree it's awkward as it seems to me that this proposal from the FDA really heightens the awkwardness because it's saying that now you have to have that person beyond the bargaining team and then they have two masters and they're one of five I could be 108 degrees wrong but I would imagine NEA would have difficulty with this proposal for that reason because superintendents and school boards tend to often tend to work hand in hand evaluate the school board and it's the superintendent so it's you know and I'm not sure where I'm not prepared today to give you a lot of in-depth thinking on it but I do appreciate the point and if you give I'm not sure where this is going to go but if you go down that road then it's going to beg longer conversations I think it's fair to say we're going to produce a bill right but you know I think you're right Senator Perch like produced a compact version if you look at the SBAs they have a good deal more than what it was in 2017 so but it will depend on how NEA feels about all of those proposals right and then my third point is what I would refer to as my thin ice point and I often get out on thin ice and then wish I hadn't but I always go there and I'm going to do it here and it has to do with the conversation which I had not thought about at all with regard to the VSBA's suggestion around compensation for commissioners and commission expenses and $175,000 in cost that they were contemplating and I know a little bit about both organizations the NEA and the VSBA to the extent that the cost of operating the employer side of the commission is derived from VSBA's budget I watched the controversy around VSBA in terms of some tough positions they took with former public policy in the state Act 46 and others and I don't know that the relative catchment for the respective organizations NEA and the School Board Association and their ability to generate revenues for these kinds of activities is evenly matched I would just leave you with that thought because you could probably do a comparison of the economic ability and stability of each association and come to different conclusions about their abilities to absorb costly elements of this activity so I'm respectful of the appropriations committee's position on we don't want to put more operating money into this but I think to the extent you want level ground with regard to how this is supposed to work moving forward and it's sustainable that is something you ought to think about point well taken thanks Jim just to state the obvious VSBA has indicated not a great deal of agreement with the 226 draft I understand that you've had very little time to look over a setup a long set of proposals so know that you can come back we'll have Mr. Dell back as well but tell us whatever you want to tell us off the top of your head what things seem to you starters from the get go and start okay so I have some written test money that I'll hand out now and I think I sent the genie already so maybe up on the website so first off thank you very much for allowing me to speak to Senator Purchick's bill 226 as you know I'm Jeff Fannan from on the end we have about 13,000 members teachers, sports staff members who work primarily in Vermont's public schools I think some histories of table setting might be good here if we go back in time and the chair was here but I don't think anybody else was in 2017 the governor came out with a proposal to do statewide bargaining so it was what we should do the superintendents all supported that at the time we did not had some concerns about how it was rolled out and in fact we said at the time it's not collective bargaining, you're bargaining with your employer not with the state who is not your employer as well the governor's proposal that VSBA and VSA supported was it dictated the terms of the agreement right at the start so there was no agreement from us on that however during the second year of the biennium in 2018 we thought that we should re-look at this and we did and we worked through to come to act 11 which actually passed in the special session and did work with Nicole Mace from VSBA on that we did not have a uniform agreement on all things I know that Nicole and I went upstairs to talk about the timeline we were very concerned about the timeline originally in the bill we both agreed that that was way too tight what's in there is now is essentially what we thought we could get and live with and the committee was willing to live with and that's where we are now on the timeline it is not perfect and in hindsight I'm sure it could be improved so on that timeline maybe we do have we're pretty close to agreement the commission is as it's formed it's labor and management equally represented and they were tasked with bargaining health insurance health insurance is complicated very complicated so they started in earnest and it ended up with going to an arbitrator in December excuse me November of the decision in December and now you can't bargain locally for health insurance and that's off the table entirely and that's probably a good thing we do support these amendments in 226 largely they're what we saw last year had a conversation with Nicole at the time she said subjectively I may not disagree with all these or agree with all these but I don't disagree with them either my question and concern is do we do it now before we've had a round of bargaining it's a concern that she expressed to me and so she said she took that position and that carried the day and we said we would come back and here we are back with largely the same things we saw last spring no different with some tweaks with understanding that we've gone through one round of bargaining it's true that the arbitrator did select our the employees position but it's also true that many educational experiences is a financial hit it's it's a give and take and that's understood and we understood that schools will feel it differently around the state as will employees around the state Act 11 when it passed also required all educators all school employees to be in to be covered by health insurance and there were a lot hundreds thousands perhaps school employees who were not covered by health insurance at all so of course it was going to cost more money covering people for health insurance cost more money in addition it required all tiers of coverage so single, two person and family and a lot of support staff didn't have that prior to the passage of Act 11 so again it's going to cost money so we knew both sides knew or should have known upon the passage of Act 11 that it was going to cost more money it was by design going to cost more money and it was by design going to cover more people and have give them more health insurance that is a good thing that the state as a matter of public policy we should applaud and I think we do so indeed it's really the cost of health care that's the problem VI's rates are going up this year 12.9% that's before the implementation it's kicked in if you will it's not affecting anybody the cost of health care is the issue here and that's the concern so I'll just dig into some of the the bill issues section 2 would address the disparity in the educator's ability to pay we do that in a lot of places around the state we do it with Act 60 for example we have income sensitized people two thirds of the people pay for their education their tax based on their ability to pay so we do it now in Act 60 this would just apply that essentially to health insurance for school employees there's a wide disparity between what a school custodian or some other support staff person is paid at $20,000 a year and a superintendent who makes $150,000 a year I'm not knocking it but there's no accounting for that how about the other labor relations acts is it in Selra it's not in Selra but I will say this it's found in other places in Vermont in fact it's found in school districts currently in Vermont Chittany's right now has income sensitivity so it's done and it's dealt with and it's worked no I get that UVM has it as you say there are instances in other places since we're paralleling labor relations acts generally Jim do you happen to know dating I don't believe there are any other state labor relations provisions that require income sensitivity or ability to pay to be for health insurance just to clarify I think one thing that this statute I believe does that I believe DVAs from Selra Melra is that it prescribes explicitly that in successor agreements after the first agreement every all employees shall pay the same amount therefore not in the others right so in the others it doesn't prohibit putting a proposal on the table that could fashion some other type of remedy so how would those two sides feel about that right now it says that they shall be the same you're arguing that it should explicitly allow for different how about if we just made it subject to bargaining yeah I mean that's what we're essentially seeking is the ability to put that proposal on the table right now the way the law is written we can't do that thoughts on that initial reaction is not in favor but I can certainly take it back to membership and see some flexibility there yeah I mean I always think about it as you don't have to change your mind but it's a chip that you now have if there's something else you want more I mean it's I do I would anticipate an administrative more work administratively for multiple folks on multiple tiers on multiple premium shares yeah I think that's reliable so certainly discussion on that front but we think it's important to acknowledge that there's a wide difference between folks who are earning salaries in a school and their ability to pay and as Colin correctly pointed out this one is unique this law is unique in that it says everybody shall pay the same amount going forward so maybe there's room for compromise there section four of the bill would allow the arbitrator to call what we call fashion a remedy and not force the arbitrator to select one party's last best offer over the others instead the bill would allow the arbitrator to select the fact finder for recommendation or select issue by issue the last best offer of either side to essentially get to a place that makes the most sense and ensure that it's not in one side of the other's position is not unreasonable or unlikely to produce undesirable results or have a long lasting negative impact on the party's collective bargaining relationship Jeff I just want to ask about this because it wasn't until you just re-read this that I actually think I understand so this section on maybe this is more question for Jim but this lines 14 through 18 on an issue per issue basis they would still have to select from the last best offer so it could be like the entity position on co-pays and the VSBA's position on out of pocket expenses or something or whatever but it couldn't be it but it could be pieces of each of them but it would have to be from the last best offer not from previous right okay yes and how would they determine what is issue by issue is it clear that this is that there are sectionable issues I think the parties did make it very clear to the arbitrator that there were issues as they I mean it's out of pockets premiums number of hours to work to be reasonable so it is I mean there were some distinct very clear that these are separable issues not that you could take like a cafeteria from last best dish best dish I'm laughing because I mean there yes it would be issue by issue on the last best offer of each side and not from left field how's that would play out what Senator Hardy saying suppose one side in their last best offer forwarded an issue that they believe should be part of the final agreement that the other side did not agree should be I don't know what it would be but a lot of times in school board negotiations one side is really concerned about usually management about the contract and the other side is very concerned about salary benefits so let's say you have the management side choosing some piece of the contract like I know intellectual property all of a sudden surface from years management really wanted to acquire interests in intellectual property produced by faculty and faculty never really agreed that that was on the table could under this scenario we're talking about one side unilaterally include an issue that the other side had not agreed was even an issue and could an arbitrator then put that in their final does that make sense that's sort of what I was is it clear that there are five issues on both sides and they're the same five issues or is it maybe one side has seven issues and the other one has five issues and they're not the same you have an arbitrator who happens to have an interest in intellectual property that should be in every agreement and they drop it in so you ask could that the answer is yes but I will tell you the experience that we had just a few short months ago was that they started nailing down they started working with the arbitrator before the hearing there was a lot of phone calls teleconferences with the arbitrator Joe McNeil and Suzanne Durmaier who testified here a week or two ago there were a lot of phone calls a lot of nailing down the issues so the answer to your question could there, yes, would there be I think highly unlikely and then the question is if you want to drop something in at the end we have to be in one of the options but I think the scenario that they're painting I think you go there at your peril you've had multiple conference calls with an arbitrator and the last minute you want to drop something in I think you go there I would not advise somebody to take that course of action but you couldn't drop it you couldn't assuming if it's written as your last best offer it could what the chair is saying if it's part of your last best offer could you drop in something I guess one thing I don't like personally about this proposal is the last best offer both sides are clear it's this offer or that offer and we don't want that one and we want ours they want theirs relatively clear but each offer is internally consistent with itself we've set it up so that my take on premium split by out of pocket it's all internally consistent what this allows an arbitrator to do is say well maybe you get an arbitrator who says well I want to satisfy both sides so there's four issues I'm going to go to and to and those four when brought together don't really work and neither side really likes the package they're not going to have a chance to say no so everybody's dissatisfied I mean in this right I think the protection there though is it's limited to only when the arbitrator makes a determination that the last best offers are unreasonable and likely to produce undesirable results or have a long lasting negative impact on the party's collective bargaining relationship that's you were here when I was asking Jim about that earlier that trigger seems to be so hair currently in seller no I get it it's just it seems to me that in fact your arbitrator said if he had the ability to mix and match the arbitrator Alan McCoslin jointly selected by both sides I just want to make that point he was on the last on the last negotiation he said he would have gone mix and match if he could have I just think that's what you would if you make this change that's what you would line up with more often than not it just seems to me human nature being what it is it's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't place a match but one thing I can see your point there and one thing reading the second clause or to have a long lasting negative impact I think that's even easier to come to that conclusion but the first two unreasonable and likely produce undesired results one thing especially after the last arbitrator's lack of explanation we'd want them to explain how they why what's unreasonable about them both and what would the end of the desired results be I think if we forced the arbitrator to really define or explain their thought process and it's less likely they would then they're getting a fairly big payday in return they should produce a work product more elaborate than what we got the law against lame arbitrator well I think part of the challenge faced by Alan McCausen was he was under a tight time frame and he was obligated by statute and had told the parties in advance I'm going to get this thing done by the time frame the law has set out for me he was very well versed in the law had read it extensively and so he kept true to that but understanding that he was up against a hard deadline I think he issued he did the analysis that he thought necessary to get the decision by the time I think that's he was up against that would you be opposed to requiring the arbitrator to give more explanation of decisions all of them are specifically like this instead of them just saying they were unreasonable saying they were unreasonable and explaining I'm not opposed to having the arbitrator explain his or her decision and I think it's a good thing as a general matter but understanding that there are time frames that were really strict and he was adhering to the statutory timelines and so and so we should adjust the timeline certainly maybe that's a that would give both sides some more time I don't know that more time is necessary I'll be honest with you but I just remember going over this a great length to remember this before and we agreed that it was better to have because one thing it would encourage both parties last best offer to be a reasonable package that could be accepted and I still think that I have to say that's my default position and not all the way through the argument on it so Jeff I'm wondering this is a long proposal from the SDN and I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense if you are willing you and Mr. O'Dell if the two sides are willing to sit down and see at this point what can be agreed upon and come back to us if Mr. O'Dell was very clear that most everything in 226 he didn't like it made me feel the same way about their suggestions in which case I would have you both back in and encourage you both to be more flexible to get more of what you want by giving more to the other side so rather than do that why don't we just come to the chase and have the two of you certainly willing to sit down with the BSBA y'all are good at negotiations we can do this just need an arbitrage explain this and then maybe that you come up with and right now I think you've indicated possible agreement with one provision maybe you come back with three and any eight can go on with three of yours that's especially if there are things like timeline and other kind of structural things that would be very helpful and then the committee can start from that point of agreement and maybe we do wind up with a thing or two that don't have both of you on board can I just add to that request and this for Jeff as well because it's really gnawing at me this whole superintendent thing and what you all think of that if you could think about it more can I really it just seems to be if we pulling apart who's bargaining in other words pulling the bargain it's gonna slowly fair it just seems odd to me that superintendents were included in this to begin with their management so here I may respond to that I mean I think that's a fair point they are management and board three members to the board in fact they pointed three school business manager who just recently resigned and two superintendents represent the board certainly the board could have appointed a superintendent or other administrator to this bargaining commission to represent management's position there was no prohibition from that in the law they could have done it and you could have done it we could have appointed anybody that's right what I said before was it seems to me what points up the awkwardness or doubles the awkwardness is this proposal actually to make sure that there is somebody in the incredibly awkward position of negotiating from that double double bastard position I think also Jeff said he wasn't involved in the bargaining which is true but his superintendents were very much I heard things from superintendents about bargaining they knew things that we didn't know from their side people are people and the superintendents were in fact involved in bargaining from the management's perspective and side of the equation and that's okay and I just think that's where they probably should be on the management side of the ledger it seems awkward to me for both sides and I feel for superintendents being put in the awkward position and you guys being and school board members being put in the awkward position well actually Jeff was having a great time he wasn't doing it we were sending out updates to our members and we sent it also to the principals and superintendents I just went away and Jay Nichols from our principal's association we don't have anybody on that committee we're put in an awkward position just as much as superintendents are we're the ones that actually exclude the contracts on a day-to-day basis for teachers I'll remember we're teachers before and I know principals do not feel well represented in it so the whole thought of the slight scale thing is a real thorn we're out of enough trouble getting to apply for principalships and superintendences every one of our members used to be or was a teacher at one point so that's something that needs to be kept in mind well it's a good point if we stipulated that you have to have a licensed administrator if it would be one or the other is this principal in the corner there's a lot of other positions I'd like to make two last points and I address them here and maybe more completely in my written testimony but I do think that sections 3 and 5 are about data data is enormously important when we're talking about health insurance we just need it in a timely fashion so the parties can use it in a manner that helps both sides Nicole and I sat down we had a joint contract with a person to collect the data the data came in and drips and drabs and in different formats and it wasn't satisfactory for anybody so data collection is a fair amount we have to know what people have in order to bargain on their behalf whether they're superintendent or custodian it's really important and it was I think a sore spot for both sides and like I say Nicole and I we jointly contracted for a person to collect the data so that we wouldn't get any bias in that data we wanted clean data for both sides and I would say it was less than perfect and that would be an understatement and last I can conclude with just because we're bargaining at the statewide level for health insurance for school employees it's not health care reform and that's really the issue we're talking about here the underlying issues health care is expensive and growing all the time so I say to the VSBA and to the superintendents and the principals welcome we've been fighting for two decades or more for health care reform please join us we need you at the table and I mean that sincerely we could be a force for good there's a bill up in the health care committee about a prescription drug review board along the lines of what Maryland did we need your support there please prescription drugs are hurting this morning our big driver for health care and we need some help there from more groups and more folks and welcome can I ask the two of you that could do just seven days could you come back next Thursday the two of you and give us an update on what proposals we have in common or reluctantly agree to I think so it would have to be on the early right I assume you were going to be on the floor at 1-ish yes so at 1-30 I could do that okay Mr. Adele could you I will meet to check with my employer alright that's good and even if even if both of you can't come as long as you have agreement and the understanding is that the other person is only going to present the areas of agreement maybe Thursday would still work or we could have I'm trying to move this bill along so I hesitate to go beyond next Thursday that gives you a week if Thursday won't work we can try to move you in any Wednesday or I can't do Tuesday or Wednesday but I couldn't do Friday I want to make sure I'm understanding you directly because I think what you're anticipating is the real work happens between now so that's probably as important to me as the work getting done in between now and then I see well let's all do what we can and if you can agree on a package that's ideal and that would leave us probably only a couple of issues that the committee would then try to decide if we should go with one side's proposal that would be about the other's agreement so you can tell from our discussions things are both sides that seem to make a good sense and if the other side doesn't see that it doesn't mean we won't go with the sensible any other stuff yeah I mean it's specific to their I'm trying to understand school boards have the ability to tax which we don't have compensation for commissioners and commission expenses so the school board's association doesn't have but their members do what are you suggesting included in the local school budgets their membership fees to BSPA are included in their taxes so anyway they would increase their membership fees in order to pay for the association yeah I mean well it's a I think it's fair to say that both sides feel disadvantaged financially and both sides would like to stay to pay