 So just a reminder to everybody what we're doing we're attempting to reconcile the wishlist, legislative wishlist of the two bargaining sides in the commission that we created in Act 7 We did hear from Joe a while back and gave us a number of things to consider we asked Jeff and Mr. O'Dell to Put their heads together and see what could be mutually agreed upon Are you starting with mutual agreement Joe or? The way we contemplated doing this is that Neil would go first and he would speak to the areas of agreement and the areas of potential agreement conceptual agreement Yeah, and then I was going to speak to the in part to the leftover issues the ones We could not reach agreement I was present with Jeff and his his group and Neil and Sue on Friday, so we have a respectful meeting We agreed on several points. There are others that Okay, so we'll assume that after you finish we're coming forward with that core of potential agreement So why don't you pick up with Thank you So I'm Joe McNeil. I was the chief negotiator and counsel to the employer commissioners in the last round of health care negotiations mediation And as I indicated Neil O'Dell is going to speak to some areas of the agreement that we reached with Jeff and company and some areas of continuing disagreement, and I Will speak to the rest so thank you for having me once again Appreciate the respectful attention and I was like to speak to paragraphs five seven eight and nine of The testimony that Mr. O'Dell Introduced So With regard to Paragraph This is This scope of bargaining We believe that we believe that there should be a statewide agreement procedure and We believe that that is important through the commission in order to number one deal with interpretation issues which will inevitably arise over the Results of our process and number two potentially enforcement issues just in case There are those that decide that contrary to the law they're not going to follow Mandate of the law so We believe that having a System-wide if you will arbitration System is really important and we believe that without it the likelihood is that by handling grievances in the various districts conflicting decisions will develop overlapping or underlapping decisions will result and The net effect will be confusion Our hope is to avoid that So that is point number one point number two seems in both when I testified Previously and as the Mr. O'Dell's testimony was reported to me It relates to number seven and that is the constitution of the panel It seemed This is one area where We were confusing the committee all of us better than helping So Taking a second stab at it and the reason we're requesting a Three Number of panel is that we think that that gives the best opportunity for a good hearing process and Joe, I'm sorry before we go to your recommendations. Can you just Summarize course what in existing yes, that's happy The current statute indicates that the If you get the last best offer You go through mediation one person One person and you get the last best offer the The statute indicates that unless the parties can agree on a single arbitrator which in the end we did this time around but Unless the parties could agree Three there will be a three person panel But appointed through the triple of the American arbitration system all three all three Yeah, and our concern is that that triples the cost potentially or no legitimate result and so by analogy We would recommend that you give consideration instead to the process that's outlined for fact-finding in the current teachers And that's found at 16 BSA 2007 BNC and what that what that indicates is that? Both parties appoint a panel member and they attempt to agree on a chair and But if they can't agree Then the process involves Selection through the triple a process But the one person as the chair is the triple a appointee the benefit of it and both the Vermont NEA and school boards have used it extensively the benefit of it is that the panelists one representative from each party post the hearing get one last opportunity to speak to and and hopefully convince the Neutral the third the chair that their side is the more correct Ultimately the chair's boat is controlling And that's fine But this process Would one appointee by each and then the third party working as chair has worked and We think it will save expense And be a better process in the end. So these these people would not be Necessarily arbitrators that could be anybody they could be yes They could be typically the parties historically have appointed People that are familiar with the process familiar with the system familiar with the argument so that they can be effective in In the caucus or the deliberative session with But they would not have to be and as we as we presented testimony the first time around We indicated that we would prefer that the two reps be the monitors the committee Reaction was not overwhelmingly In favor of that specification we didn't proceed so we thought about it further and we're not wed to that That's not the end of the day if we can if we can both make an appointment so we recommend that as Something to be considered for an alternative to the current system I'm trying to remember what problem you're trying to solve with this was it I recall a conversation about the arbitrator not I Think I've referred to arbitrator's lane. So those are my words, but Is that the problem you're trying to do that the arbitrator didn't in providing the explanation and that in part We believe that it is more likely to be the case that if you have a three-person panel With the chair the the parties will urge upon the arbitrator or more let's call it a more robust Decision-making process than what we have How will it save money? It will save money because the current statute says that if we're going to use a panel All three of them have to be from the triple a okay So that means you're paying the triple a administrative fee and you're paying the per diem cost for all three It also means more likely than not but all three are not from You didn't do that route this time. You didn't have a panel. We did not We did read on one arbitrage. We agreed on one arbitrage Sure And that that moves me to the paragraph paragraph a particularly the Which talk about The the results of What should be included in the analysis and Very frankly the more important of these subsections to us is subsection C which Would require that the the arbitrator Provide in the decision An analysis of the cost of the proposals by both parties and In selecting one Indicate with some degree of specificity why That particular proposal is being accepted as opposed to the other I Do recognize we also ask for in B an actuarial Evaluation and the impact upon the Education spending I Be the first to do best that may be a bit daunting or or an arbitrator without Fairly extensive expert testimony And so of the two C is the more important to us And just making sure that we have a developed fully reasoned Decision and we don't think we don't think it's too much to ask that And Joe just jogged my memory if you would I know that Mr. Adele had talked about the need for Standard rationale to come back as opposed to what we got this time around so this would be a part of that It would be in the final report so rationale and Full cost of the estimate That's correct mr. Chairman. Okay question. I'm what do you mean by a full-cost estimate on the? on the a statewide cost estimate yes Impact on the education fund or an impact or just this would cost a million bucks or a fair question Ultimately to the Commission the way that case was tried we would have been satisfied Frankly if the arbitrator is based on the evidence the the employer commissioners say that the Employee commissioners plan is $25 million more expensive They say it isn't I Find in finding for x or y I find that the cost is likely to be so overall cost on a statewide basis would be At least a minimum and we could live with that very frankly Do arbitrators have those skills they do if the evidence is presented to them What we had in this situation not to dwell on it, but we had three very long days of hearing in the last best offer Proceeding we both had experts both health care experts and and fiscal analysts and Information evidence was presented as to cost and What we believe is the typical arbitration typical proceeding that we've had for the state of Vermont for example before the BLRB you get a detailed decision that says Here here are the positions of the parties here are the facts that we find Here are our conclusions of law with regard to those facts and Consequently here is the decision that we're making as We presented last time this decision said simply I looked at both parties positions There's as close into the statute the guy to that man. They win. Okay, they won I get that and some will win some will lose, but I think what we're Really hoping to gain from the committee here is language suggesting demanding that we get more for More out of these processes So the and and paragraph nine is really Continuation of that the We would would like in the ideal world Or the legislature to indicate what this statute is all about. We know it's about Greater equity among educational employees is We assume it's about Providing a level of access through educational employers that didn't exist before But is it within within the realm of reasonable cost or is it at any cost? and we think that that that an articulation that it is within a Reasonable cost does not tilt the scales In favor of one side or the other it just Demands a certain amount of balance That's what that's what we're looking for and And then then the last one and perhaps the toughest in terms of where we go from here the the Vermont E.A. Has requested in its in S226 has Introduced that we move from what I would call the baseball arbitration model last best offer to a Solomon model, you know pick pick and choose among the position and we'd be the first to say that the The arbitrator and the proceeding we just went through indicated that if he had his Power to do so he would not have picked one in its entirety But would have picked and chosen Among the competing proposals So we have thought and really anguished the employer commissioners over whether to support or not support NEA Proposal that we move from last best offer to Solomon offer There there are wizards there's wisdom in both approaches and no doubt about it, but on at the end of the day We would favor the retention of the last best offer approach and The reason for that although it didn't work this time The reason for that is that we believe that over time That will serve as a better deterrent against getting to arbitration as the final step and will serve as a catalyst towards the party's region so it's I Can't tell you that that's a scientific conclusion based upon you know years of study But I Do know from experience elsewhere that the fact that the arbitrator is going to have to pick the one Proposal in its entirety versus another is Is a driver towards elements and and I and I know from experience on behalf of the state in Executive branch But there were two or three occasions when the Vermont Liberation's board in its opinion said But for this one prevent this one thing we would have gone to the other party's Proposal but because of this one thing that we can't abide We're going to you know pick door number eight our Thinking is that that deterrent is a better part of our jurisprudence then the then going issued by issue so that's my supplemental testimony today I'm Happy to answer any questions and ultimately we're mindful of the chairs Indication that it would be helpful to actually have draft of language Yeah, once the committee decides This is actually fine, this is prescriptive enough that Jim could easily And if there's any help we can give I'm just wondering if there's data from just collective bargaining writ large about the evidence between last best offer and the sort of menu Option because it's I don't know. I mean I can't tell which the logic would Would lead to in terms of which is more likely to arbitration or not? Well, I think the I Think the problem with it is that it's not just Which outcome you got but which was more valuable so One of the things I don't like about the pick and choose model is that You could have an arbitrator fashion an agreement that neither side likes and So that would that piece of data wouldn't help you To know whether or not it led to arbitration because the important thing for me is how the parties are Looking at it and responding to Does that make sense? Yes. I mean, yeah But I think that's a slightly different question because I mean if your argument is that you want to do the last Best offer because you think it will lead to fewer cases of arbitration not withstanding what just happened Do you is that just a hunch or do you do you have actual data that shows that that's more likely? It's a great question Let me try to handle it by the experience that I've encountered City for about 40 years or so I represented the city of Burlington and I did all their bargain Back in the 1970s under the statutory authority the voters in Burlington passed a Referendum that said that In order to eliminate the possibility of strikes not on the teachers side been on the municipal side They would adopt Binding arbitration is the last step of the of the process. So that that has been With the city of Burlington for that length of time It is not last best offer to be fair it doesn't speak to whether Sometimes the parties have agreed to make it last best offer other time. It's gone issued by issue There has been a deterrent there is a deterrent back to both methodologies the there have only been about in 40 years I think four or five situations Where binding arbitration has been used a couple in the electric department relating to pensions and One in police and one in fires On the other hand the state of Vermont executive branch and judiciary Judiciary hasn't used it but the State of Vermont executive branch has a statute that has last best offer no picking and choosing And in the history of the state of Vermont bargaining. It's been used only twice So it has acted as a deterrent I'm probably Working my around my way around to say I don't think it's Just a hunch but But it is the only other thing I would say is I Can't cite you to chapter and verse, but I'm I am familiar I have read several scholarly articles that suggest that if you're going to have arbitration Interest arbitration as opposed to grievance arbitration and you want Instead to have an incentive to settlement last best offer is the better approach and but I avoiding arbitration is only one thing that we're thinking about it's also what will the results of arbitration be and People have different theories about which method is gonna even if we go to arbitration which methods going to produce the best result and You know, I wouldn't say it's impervious to data, but it's very much driven by people's values and What they want out of the process which is contested heavily anyway, so So Joe I know you have to go to go ops your 10 minutes past your State of time do they need you or I was supposed to get a tax from Pat Gable when If you can't stay that's great. We can bring up Neil O'Dell Thank you very much for your courtesy absolutely and thanks for Okay Last year I do have new and then also attached is the testimony from the last time So once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you again today At your request the BSPA and the Vermont NDA representatives from both organizations met this past Friday To determine areas of agreement and this agreement it was a respectful discussion on the basis of that meeting I am happy to report that we did find agreement on a few items We both support This is where the Both support paragraph one of the BSPA proposal for specific additions to Related to expanding the definition of employees covered by at 11 Treating supervisory and managerial employees as teachers slash administrators. Sorry, Mr. Second you have a copy of this general I You got So obviously we're very interested in these points of agreement for potential additions So that was treating supervisory and managerial employees as teachers and administrators and treating non-supervisor confidential employees as support staff We also agreed on paragraph four F relating to per diems and expense reimbursement for the commissioners and paragraph 8a Clarifying a requirement that last best offer positions be submitted and exchanged before the arbitration hearing and that the party shall not be Modified the last best offers posts here Okay Very sensible which I'm sorry. What was the last one? About last best offers and not modifying them after the hearing Additionally Vermont NEA stated that it agreed in concept with our proposed paragraph 3 relating to the exclusion of alternates with the possibility of limiting the number of alternates on each side paragraph 4d relating the striking of provision about removal of commissioners for cause is unnecessary and Then paragraph 10 relating to providing funding for expenses such as corporate orders, common research So 4d was agreed to So these are in concept I did not say yes. Yeah the response was in concept. We agreed to these things. I think there was a further We could I can't speak for the money So you got the last the last What is paragraph it's it's a Compensation for commissioners I thought you were looking on today's I was yeah, you're you're referencing your old While their position on Friday was not supported the NEA representative indicated that they appreciated our explanations And we're willing to give further thought to paragraph 5 And chair got six relating to starting back at wrap the bargaining earlier The BSPA is hopeful that further thoughtful results in support That also seems kind of a no-brainer to me than starting bargaining earlier. I mean unless there's some You know reason related to the timing of the academic calendar or something I think everybody agreed. It was a very tight Yeah So for those paragraphs we were where we were unable to agree the BSPA continues to support all of the proposed gene It's from our original testimony of January 24th My remaining testimony today. I'll focus on those items more directly impacting local boards With respect to paragraph 2 we suggest Because they're clearly obligated by the statute to represent this category of our employees which had no Representational voice in the first round of bargaining We respectfully suggest that they cannot be among the important mission because they would have a very apparent conflict of interest here Moving on striking paragraph for each did not solicit a strong exception Really a thought that doing so would be premature this juncture The SBA sees no likelihood that the commission will ever need to be involved in rulemaking So we suggest that this provision simply says a dead letter if it is retained Well, Mr. McNeil Did cover this provision? I would also like to point out that with respect to paragraph 8c and 16 VSA But here she believes to be the cause of the implementation of his or her award based upon the evidence presented hearing Really is a critical piece of information for school boards to know in preparing their own budgets having that cost information Quite helpful to us I am Disappointed that we weren't able to come to an agreement regarding the timing of negotiations as we proposed in paragraph 6 and That the Vermont NDA's proposal number three For the regulations data from school districts by February 1st The VSA agrees that accurate and timely negotiations data from school districts has been official for both the employee and the employer commissioners We also feel that school districts would be more than able to meet the request if it falls outside of the normal budget development season Our request to change the timeline of negotiations will allow for school districts boards and the local Vermont NDA bargaining units to have Accurate and final information regarding employee health insurance important to local bargaining and budget development a More reliable tax rate estimate since the settlement can be incorporated into the tax commissioners December 1st letter and Finally a greater opportunity for local bargaining in time for inclusion in the budget or at the very least To be able to be presented in town meeting Regarding the original language of s 226 we're still opposed to section 2 One of the original premises of act 11 was to move towards equal access at equal contribution levels for educational employees The change requested here would alter the school fundamentals use a suspect methodology for doing so Looking at salary only was not accurately reflected on employees ability to pay And additionally as Jeff Francis has pointed out in his testimony many school employees work a varying number of days each year Using salary as a measurement of ability to pay would be further complicated by the number of contracts work days for that salary so If I could just check on a nuance. Yeah, so I think You're right that NDA would like to have that change made But there's a there's another step that could be taken which is just to allow it to be bargain Which wouldn't make the change, but it would allow it to be bargain Circumstances where both sides agreed it could become a change Am I assuming right that you will pose both of those scenarios? Yeah, I mean it just you know it were to be bargained and therefore as a result it were to be allowed That's yet another administrative burden on our folks We're already assuming all of the administrative fees associated with managing the plans now We've got also worried about varying levels of premium share depending on the employee and their salary levels And then finally I'd also we still have continuing concerns about the high-poor representation Well honestly so do I You know It was clear just from trying to schedule basic testimony that it was Not a high-functioning Questions for mr. Odell well, thank you. That's I thought there was Very helpful that first page Three maybe right away So what do we ask Here As Neil and Joe did talk about we did meet with Sue and Neil was on the phone and Joe in person Colin on that Friday Try to go through this Figure out where we had agreement and disagreement And I think they presented largely truthfully, I might take some Liberties with how they describe it. I think it's on large measure, I saw not they had nine paragraphs I think we agreed to three Is my scorekeeping on Friday? large I think you just echo that Well, so I think that it's true The alternate so I'm not sure exactly how you'll just describe it I Think what we said on Friday was we think that it's about the alternates to the commission we thought that Really reports on what the number if you will A large number and I think committee discussed to up to two and we were What we're saying on Friday was okay, we had a little bit too little bit I mean it makes sense to me, but the committee hasn't taken a position on it yet I do think unlimited immediately proved problematic and you can understand why Center person is the question number If they're President the negotiations will we see the alternates as being present negotiations and here's why And I think I talked about this last time We started asking folks to participate as we prepare for this part and somebody who we thought would have been a very good sports staff person Almost immediately took another job. It was not Able to participate and we realized then in August of 2018 That life is what it is people participate and then things change six months down the road or whatever And I remember having a conversation with Nicole about that in September of that year saying suggesting that all friends might be good for thinking both sides because If you want the process to continue on Many people who are knowledgeable about what happened previously and so we thought it would be important to be able to slip people in So we see the alternates is actually Being necessary to be in the room to carry out the function So much a juror It will step in should somebody else have to step on Yeah, so you're you're current on the testimony and the data and all of that stuff. Yes, somebody has to step out You just changed chairs It seems to me that the big objection Going back to the start of the process with the number which is five and then five any eight commissioners who are officials supposed to That's a team of ten in the room which can be a little intimidating here each side would be theoretically allowed Seven people in the room two of them would be sitting listening but not present So good good to know that that's a potential And Other I think you'll mention to on Paris For D of their document and five we think there's some necessary. I think you alluded to it Charity the need for wordy word smithing the details matter So would you be averse to me sitting down with Jim and Working on a drafting request that incorporates those that you haven't fully agreed on So that there was language for you to react to Yeah, I mean I think that the grievance one to say why do you think that's a really important concept and I think that Detailed really very much matter. Somebody's got to be knowledgeable about what those details are and how they might play out reality So I think that's a really delicate one for us, but I think and and Before you left Joe offered to draft language. You could do the same on the grievance thing and we could look at both drafts and figure out What we want to do with it, but knowing that you want to go in the same direction Right Go around they were they shared with us and they shared with you earlier 8c was a big interest to them and And this is what the parties did They had a financial health care expert in the form of Steve May We had a financial expert in the form of Steve the fellow youths who work at JFO And they were the ones costing out the proposals and they actually are heard from both sides The two steams if you will cut together I think you know came to some a common understandings about certain things as they progress And so I think that their cost estimate Is a significant challenge for the arbitrary He or she before might have to pick one side of the other in some sense of the word and rely on that parties Expert who testified at the hearing. I don't you know, Joe admitted that it would be significant Significant lift for the arbitrator might have to hire an actuary to go through it on him or herself You know to give them their own estimate not to mention the least of which is what we call a take-up rate Nobody knows whether somebody's going to take a single person playing this year A family next year and they get married and they get divorced because the other way they might have a kid all life events happen and to estimate How it's going to play out and cost wise is I think in a possibility What the cost is really what we're dealing with here is people know they're going to be 80 20 People know that their out of pockets are $400. They have a single plan or $800 Those are the cost estimates now whether people take up a family plan or just stay with a single That's what they really want to know here. I think that's the next one possible for an arbitrator to do So I think that's really Something that's challenged and I do that's why we said no so far it is Next to the possibility and both sides have done it You will they bring their actuaries make their argument and the arbitrator makes a decision and finds one more That's what the arbitrator did here Him starting to do well by time Selected one move off. So Just trying to Again figure areas of agreement. So you do not agree about adding cost estimate To the arbitrator's report, but am I remembering right that you agreed that a more fulsome explanation of Why one package was picked over the other is something especially a more complete Decision, yeah, we might help everybody But I think it was alluded to last time we just like that could end the party's contract with the arbitrator. Yeah And in fact, we went back to the operator for clarification. You rented the second, you know clarifying decision So it's not as if the parties don't have tools. Yeah available to them already although wouldn't hurt to put it in the statute that You know the arbitrator shall Select last best offer assuming we stay with that and provide a Reasonable rationale for You know, I'm not so open with your appearance. I don't listen. I would hazard a guess that you might say he did yeah, right? And so, you know, he selected said The school employees position Remember right he said it would take a long time so I'm not going to do it Which is That So we'll just you know, we could look at Another sentence in terms of fleshing out what what the expectation is coming back Are the cost estimates required in the last best offer or is the process is such that you would never get to that stage without Well, certainly both sides had actually financial experts there Attempts to assert their side of the person why it was less costly or more bossy or whatever the case may be So that was part of the conversation absolutely Was there a value in saying you have to do that or is it just always good? necessarily part parts of the parties conversation causes is Significant and understandable Part of the conversation well and you know frankly in the In the school board's proposals, there's a running theme of wanting to Raise the visibility of cost to the state to the district In in the statute so there's another area that you didn't agree on where they wanted to add language around What it would cost the stage or could it be afforded? And those were not So when you're selling for example, but that's not that's not permissible the state employees we have relations long But Joe and I talked about that on Friday already in state law for state employees, excuse me I'm not part of the allowable discussion Okay, so being consistent if you will the seller in this regard Jeff can I ask you in terms of striking? Subjection a section Or no, I'm sorry Let's say the 10th at age 23. Yeah, do you we feel very strongly than say it's it's it's a that and here's why Just for a historical reference it's there. It's happy. It is what guided the parties to some degree or another last year It is not it is not And we had this discussion on Friday. It doesn't have any influence going forward The language by its own terms Expires it's in session law. It's not caught by the green books. Yeah, and so it is not Other than historical reference, which is we think is important for it to stay there for that very reason It is no lasting effect. Okay session long, but you think it might be Diabetes of some sort I think if somebody to look back it's what guided last year's conversation. It doesn't I think we're moving it from session law Is a little bit odd to me frankly if you're gonna look at Session laws inside of baseball anymore. Yeah, right. I mean most people look at the green books and see Let's look see what's caught up by if you know that there's session law out there And then to think oh we can change session law after the fact It just So let's say you're 10 years three This so in last in 2018 when the law was passed there was An understanding that emerging support staff and licensed folks they were Of course that particularly were all over the map As to what they were paying health insurance. And so there was an appreciation for that And allowing the parties in the one time the first contract only to allow for different Payment amounts for both sides and that's why that that was in there. It's a one time only And it's just in session law it is just in session law Yeah, I don't know how much council treated but I mean, I guess if you're in another session law delete session law Act 11 paragraph h 23 whatever Um, but it would be tortured in some sense of the logic of it. I don't know. Yeah, and and you know to the extent that it does Exist of legislative intent The intent is pretty broad You know, I don't think it would really help The arbitrator one way or the other So I don't think it advantages one side or the other and by its own terms It's it's expired. Right, right. So an arbitrator I think we'll advise to look at it. Yeah expired language to try to influence his or her decision down the road Well turn to our Four items that we received And I you know, that's the section one In second test 226 To attend the time off in that they're Again, it's a cost estimate that they were looking for a cost to the substitute users And I'm not sure what I might notice here from friday where the bsb is really not sure how this will play out So I don't know if we have a agreement or not on that entirely, but I think in concept I think everybody Thought it was it made sense to say that way There's the cost factor that they're concerned about and I understand that Do you know how many of the Employees or commissioners work or into demo like it was at least one that I was aware of. I know that There's the not ability And I think I Right, let's use and for my office and joe had to get involved and Rest of the personnel Have the classroom to attend the parking section and Ed just seems Um That's a challenge for both sides when people aren't able to get there So you agree on something weeks or a month in advance and all of a sudden you can't later It seems Not a good process Now that's why we we put it in I thought it was important to me and Jeff I haven't I just thought of this maybe it's that idea What would you think in in that case Of kind of counting up the sub cost and then split by the two sides I guess that's sort of what paragraph 10 above is talking about. Okay There's our paragraph 10 The compensation and we think they should be compensated. That's what we agree And I guess you just fold it into that concept as well Do you mean by the state? Well, that's what they were seeking We do think that the commission should be compensated And we did agree with them on the overall Because I Honestly, I can't imagine that that goes anywhere I know both sides would agree that we agree with the state to pick up the costs But I remember the discussions I had with Senator Kitchell Yes So I'm aware of the political around Did you get into the budget adjustment that they had paid for last time? She didn't mess with yesterday, but maybe it's too small I'll ask And we would support that I mean You'd had it in act 11. Yeah, they relied on it. I think that's only fair. Yeah. Yeah As to section two, um, this is what allowing different Uh Different premium co-pays Based on one's ability to pay we feel very strongly about this. We do think that Under malera chin and east and middlebury already do it malera being the municipal employees law So it's done in schools already Is to under the state of police Soura it's done there at the state colleges And it's even And uh, so it's a concept that's that's done elsewhere in a collectively guarded environment And we just think it it makes inherent practical sense given that the salaries and income of school employees varies dramatically from Well, particularly on licensed people and that's What we're Particularly looking for the teacher a little bit closer together. But also new teachers in particular have significant student loans I think they're there can be some concept, you know, if you're you're newer teachers who have the student loans They're at the low end of it and they have to be You know able to pay their bills and student loans as well as getting healthcare We don't want people not taking healthcare because they're in court. That's the issue right And the last two vsk just uh You know, we had a fundamental disagreement on data. We think data is very important I think they agree and concept the data is very important. We share We hire somebody independently The sba and we did I think data is paramount. You're going to get good information a good decision from an arbitrator She must have good information going in both sciences. So I think data is really important And uh, the last best offer that the Maybe it was tougher the first go around but after the first round Joe's right in the state system there have been decisions where the arbitrator the decision maker would have appreciated Wouldn't decide one way or another but based on one or two provisions that may have been unlawful They couldn't decide there. So that this is a design this our process here is designed to reaching or rational decision overall and I have Actually wild swings people swing for the fence I think that's the challenge It is not Where do you stand on the the changing the timeline? You are not in favor of It a couple of things It would number one selfishly. I think for both sides it would mean this october we start party For you have a vacation plan already. I don't I wish I did Let me kid you college But just finished, you know, yeah, and so we just finished but so I don't think it's a good healthy I think there's some need and honestly so every contract in the state is up for bargaining right now The school boards don't know what their overall costs are going to be You know On december 1 any more than they do on town meeting day most contracts go expire june 30 and they go right up to that Is well after town meeting day votes and so the argument that they need to know and it's well in advance is simply not It's It's not today. It's been a history of not knowing what the actual costs are until well after town meeting day well, I can't I mean Having been through the budget process a bunch of times It really sucks to have no information on which together a budget And this would just be one more thing and if we can align it so that school districts Have more information to do their budget. I'm not sure I don't hear I don't hear a good argument from your side about why we should Realign the timing to to be Just because not everything else is if I could realign everything to time better would be better. Yeah It's the timing is Tight regardless. Yeah, and it is going to be tight regardless And I think just starting earlier is going to extend even longer the torment I think the parties I think the parties need to get to a decision. They need to come to an agreement more quickly this We went to the the very end If you will right, but if we started it earlier and then put in earlier time to end date Would be same amount of time just shifted or shifted earlier You know I get it. What I'm saying is that We're just going to push something else and the timing is what it is We are it will be bargaining them for information With fun plans that people haven't even taken up yet So you're bargaining years in advance and and how long in advance do you want it? We won't have we won't know what the cost of the health insurance is at that point. No idea And so these new plans that we're talking about now will start january 1 of 2021 And we'll start bargaining before we even know those plans and how they're playing out in october of this year For january 1 2023 We just think it's way too early. Well, what about the next year? I mean, that's maybe I'm just not clear about what the timeline is what You will start bargaining this october for two years in advance That's that's that's what they that's what they're proposing. I see Trying to figure out how to realign it better with the school budgeting calendar Maybe it doesn't have to be two years in advance So we you know, so we'll we'll start under the current law. We'll start bargaining in april of 2021 For plans that will start january 1 essentially 2023, okay So you're you're suggesting what they're suggesting is starting bargaining in the october of 2020 for plans to start january 1 2023 Yeah, that does seem too far in advance. It's way too far. That's but I'm wondering That's the six months. I mean, I understand the argument that you know, if we had all the information in a perfect world For 2023, but we don't have salary information. We didn't we the contracts aren't even Settled yet that expire this june 30 for the following right year. So it's it This is a concept that parties have lived with for many years. I mean, it's not as if At all Yeah, no, I guess if we have perfect information three years in advance and We used to just you know, we used to have longer term contracts that allowed for that So you might you know year one might be a little bit of a hiccup But in years two and three and four you said four year deals They were common those are going away for whatever reason parties aren't willing Don't want to I don't know But that would allow better budgeting Absolutely, we were looking for a four-year deal under this proposal. They wanted it too. And so we actually Split the difference we got to eat Two and a half is really what we have The way it works out Well So make sure you understood about I get it. I get it. I mean, we it uh, we were looking for a longer term deal that would have addressed their issue initially and and We think that's probably the parties can figure this out if they want stability and knowledge before I'm going to agree about that. I think that's really What we feel strongly about so, um I said before I I think the The easiest next step is for us to generate a draft out of what you brought us today Have Jim put together A strike all for 226 That gets rid of the language that was not agreed upon keeps the language that was agreed upon and adds proposals from school boards that were either agreed to or Looked as though they were within striking distance Then we can have the two sides back. We can be working from that at that point you can Certainly make other arguments about what you might Without mutual agreement still want to get in But it becomes it becomes a Harder task to get it in because it's not mutually agreed and it would it would take a Majority of the committee to want to put one of those items, right? Yeah, that makes sense I think so. Is there anything else that you want us to know before we Before we try to codify what you're Tentatively agreeing to and maybe some things that you close on The only thing that struck me was that the very last point about the timing where I thought Respectively, Jeff used the same argument that I'm using This is why they did want to change the timeline is because he was worried about not getting accurate data For the commissioners and I'm worried about not getting accurate data for school boards for budgeting. So I believe the argument works for us both in a sense But isn't aren't you asking for two years in advance instead of just one year in advance? I'm still not clear on the time. Maybe I just need to look at a calendar So this agreement yeah, we could do that but in this agreement starts the effective day is january 1 2021 for two years Right, so it ends in 2023. So the next time you're bargaining would start on january 1 2023 Yes, the next contract the next contract And you're asking for bargaining to start in october of 2020 Correct The year before The contract would go into A fact because it takes me a year to bargain on a contract, right The The october 15th date was merely wanted to put down there so that we have something to talk about I think I think there's a year most interested in Is the the the final arbitration hearing and then when the report would come out and to have that data in school board members hands Or budget season really kicks off. That's the important date for us Right, so I think you're still missing here. I think it's can start in october of 2021 Correct, it would be the October of the year Do it and be done october 22 going into effect three months later. I see okay Sorry, I'm holding you all up We're not we're not tied to that october date What we are tied to is making sure that the final finish decision the agreement the award Comes in time for for board members. Well, then let's start it in july Which I know you all love because it's everybody's up, but that's when you need it You need to buy but you need to buy september 1st start what in july bargaining It's early I'm starting april starting april. I thought you started out tober Currently in the statute it's april 1st of the year Prior to the expiration So the contract That currently is receiving expires in december 31st 2022 Therefore bargaining happens in 2021 Beginning april 1st concluding december 15th 2021 for a full year prior So these are column roms and veranii. I think also one thing for the record is You know the first year of anything new is is a bit of a level set, right and um I would you know, I think we believe that and hope a Future negotiations might not go to arbitration, right? be that um, obviously the Changes that could come of an agreement may not be as impactful For employees or employers that are being felt this year in the first The first agreement To my way of thinking it worked now Joe was talking about day one and we lost I don't really see it that way because I think the process did force a certain amount of narrowing between the between The last best offers So maybe next time it'll be you know, the school boards that that win but theoretically the process is getting us in a more efficient way to Some kind of narrowing of the gaps and then we have finality So as I said, I will I will work with jim Which is actually what we did what I did with act 11 with jen And damien and jim We would have presentations from the two sides and then the three of them and I would sit and we would create a draft Out of the two proposals that now people come in and respond to it and Things that they couldn't live with we ejected and and got agreement on all that remained It did on my recollection. Yes, it's true. Absolutely. It could not be more going back to the time So Nicole and I I mean one of the things we were really concerned about last time was Timeline, yeah So it was a significant challenge then it remained so and that was one of the last changes we made was to stretch The timeline so we did stretch it. I think that was that was a hard Yeah, fought hard and then we reached and I think upsetting that now and and I can I can into it Each side has I would say One possibly two things that you really want that the other side really doesn't want to give you I'm I'm happy to continue those discussions So I'm not arbitrarily imposing the idea that you each have the veto on the other So we we might as a committee wind up importing something in that's not mutually agreed upon if a strong majority of the committee Agrees on it. So we take Four votes to do something like that. We did it with vi rebalancing last time out It's not my desire to go there, but I I think School boards have pointed out some things that are reasonably sensible That NEA doesn't want to go along with them vice versa So we'll we'll see where the committee lands, but the intention again is to have 98% mutual agreement One more quick. I was just looking back at 226 on the top of page two the lines that were released time You guys agreed on the concept of making sure that there was compensation for commissioners Right, but it was not well. They want the state to you guys want your you want per diem per diem Not release time Where's that for them? We're looking for release time. You're looking for release time for teachers You're looking for per diems for your school and they're looking for substitutes to cover the release time For the NEA members. We're not the school. Thanks. Oh the school board. You why how you want to be able to ask me So look, this is one of those things where we know it's important both sides We try to figure out where we could live with each other's And and so we're looking for release time so our folks can get there They're looking for per diem compensation for their commissioners Um, we weren't looking for that, but we hear that they should be compensated. It was part of their original deal They'd like our folks to be released, but then the state to pay for their the substitutes might Yeah, I mean part of the issue for us right is that one of my jobs is the school board members to make sure that I've got the best qualified teachers sitting in front of my kids every day Maybe not necessarily in multi-day commission Meetings every time that teacher goes out. It's a cost to the district Into the taxpayers in that district. It's not a cost It's necessarily being borne by the Vermont NEA to have that teacher there for the and the two sides are splitting the other costs so Yeah, I mean it would be a reasonable starting place to say Maybe both sides should be splitting the cost of substitutes to free up a commission But remains to be Remains to be That's the big answer Well, thank you gentlemen. I I just yeah, sorry. I just wanted to be clear on where it's been agreed to Well, I'm not clear. I'll talk with you about that Later in the day, okay And we'll work off of these documents and then admittedly it will be my notes and understanding and subject to revision by committee members and And the party, but it'll give us a place to start. So we talked yet though about um, it began. We had testimony from Uh, mr. McNeil. Yes, that'll be on behalf of the commission, but I'm not sure if they Agree to that position or not I'm clear on it. So when we when we talk later, we'll um Lay it out. I don't know Thanks Okay, thank you gentlemen. Thank you I was hoping for something just like this It wasn't perfect. Well, we came to some agreement and I'll say to Jim In some of the things we Think we could get to yes The details matter the words matter and so That's what we're looking for And Feel free if you have language around especially the things you agree on The things you're close on like the grievance procedures That's a Fairly delicate Piece of under the closing. We just think okay. You think it's the details matter. Joe. What you know, what are those details? How do you how do you get here? Yeah, I can't say yes or no Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Thank you. Um, so committee it's ice cream social break So why don't we come back to three? Is there any She tends to get headaches and stomach aches and she's always Going to the nurse's office and laying down I appreciate what you're what you're doing Um, thank you So let's let's get started. We're on The miscellaneous bill and the part of the provision of potential hygiene product. So genie. Yes This I'm not sure if you realize we imported this in a miscellaneous way So then Here It's the miscellaneous bill when it starts with our students Yes So, um, Sophia hall, please join us Just let me move for uh the latest chair And you can uh, just introduce yourself and your affiliation for the record and okay and tell us what we need Okay, my name is Sophia hall. I am uh the president of the Vermont state school nurses association And we are About 130 members, but we have over 350 nurses school nurses in the state um I've been a nurse for 40 years And school nurse and sheffield at millers run school for the last second Um We truly appreciate you are reaching out to us and asking the school nurses for input on this very important um piece of legislation because For those of us school nurses in the room although nurses are of More than just female gender over 50 of the people in our world are female who menstruate once a month For 40 plus years And making that a normal thing is what's really important to us as nurses using the opportunity to educate Not only the girls, but the boys as well that this is a very normal activity and um If we feel that it's very important that Uh, sedentary supplies be made available at health costs for the students Can I just ask you um Because we haven't really heard it articulated Expressly, but there are some people who are of the opinion that It's enough if we have supplies available in the nurses office We don't need to provide them in bathrooms from dispensers What what would be your take on that? Well, it's interesting. Um, I have three um additional school nurses with me We got together the over the weekend to talk about um how to present this information and um Every school is different Just like every child is different every school has its own little climate And we feel pretty strongly that it's important that the schools be allowed to Determine which bathrooms Um need to have The supplies available um We want them to continue to be available in the nurses office, but again It's a normal activity. So you shouldn't have to always go to the nurse When you need a tampon Yes, we want people to be responsible and Um independent and be prepared, but the reality is that's not always the case Even if you've been menstruating for years, you can get caught off guard So with and not be prepared. So it's important to have them available but the um The schools the people in the schools that Need to decide what's going to work best for our school for our population. Well, let me ask you this, um because world was engaged in this um trying to You know read the future because you always have some Uh Outlier some districts that would say well What's right in our school is to have them only in the nurses office or have them only in one bathroom whatever is the cheapest or the least trouble so How might we find a medium between Requiring that these be provided and allowing the freedom you're talking about For the individual school to determine What's best for it? That's a great question and because I'm in an elementary school elementary middle school. That's relatively small I'm going to ask one of my Folks that are in a much larger school. Okay And if you could just identify yourself for the record My name is Catherine. I'm a nurse at harwood. Um, I've been a high school nurse For about four years and I've worked in elementaries as well So I think there's also some embarrassment about having to go to a nurse to a female to ask And it shouldn't be up to somebody else to decide whether or not you can have this product Whether or not you've had too much of this product There's cultural sensitivity where it's embarrassing to ask another person to In front of sometimes there's boys in the room to have to say that in front of your peers So I think it Gives a lot of autonomy and saves dignity and You know and also with students we do not let students have bloody noses in class and believe in class They come to the nurse's office and we give them supplies to take care of that We don't question it. We don't talk about whether it's in our budget to do this and We provide these supplies and I think the resource kids are still going to use their own products because probably what we're going to provide is Less expensive products that are not You know cardboard applicator Not all girls are going to want to use the cardboard applicator They're going to want the slim plastic applicator. So The resource kids are still going to use that. So I don't think you're going to find every single female student Using these products they have delayed dispensers so that you're not you know taking a whole bunch at a time It's going to take energy. So it's not going to be You know There's ways around it and then for non identifying females who also menstruate having them in Other bathrooms and not just girls bathroom keeping that language vague is important So I know you're in a high school too. Do you have any other thoughts? Yeah, I know I agree with everything you've said and also you know just again Oh, sure. I'm telly land where and I'm a school nurse at middlebury high school The reason why we do that by the way is Sometimes a year later or two years later. We need to go back and Find out what testimony actually was and at that point if you haven't said your name You know, we have a very difficult time. Sure Yeah, but I think looking at the way the bill currently reads it says an all bathroom all female and gender neutral bathrooms I think that where it gets back to where So spoke to schools are all different. So it may not work to have it in every bathroom There may be reasons why it's not appropriate to have it in every single one of those bathrooms So giving schools having the wording be a little more vague and giving schools the option to have it in bathrooms They think is appropriate, but I also Agree that there needs to be not only in supply in the health office But that supply that can access without having to ask without having to Deal with maybe the shyness the embarrassment around asking So having it worded some way that there's some publicly available and some available in the health office Yeah, that's the tricky part. It is tricky the way to build those is now It it just draws a bright line every every bathroom for women or gender neutral bathroom has to have it And that way there's never the problem you describe the person would always have access But to go back to the point about the autonomy of the school district and the The fact that the administrators of it know it best It would be great to allow some flexibility. It's just You know if you leave a loophole sometimes people will drive the truck through it So what we're what we're trying to do is make sure that People don't continue to disadvantage women as they have traditionally And it can happen so easily if we if we say for instance You can provide them in the nurse's office, but you have to provide them in a certain number of bathrooms They might decide that number is one and then you know, does that really help? Well, thank you all for coming I actually when we first talked about this bill said we should reach out to school nurses and Kelly It's good to see you here. I'm Ruth Hardy And my daughter is in your school and I the first person I called actually about this bill was Mary Gill So And she connected me to your organization and I talked to the Mary Hogan nurse also, but So in talking to my daughter who is a high school student She was absolutely, you know thought that these should be available in bathrooms So that she wouldn't have to go ask you for one if she needed that To your point, I think that girls have their own preferences on what kind of product they're going to use And so people won't always use them But they're there for an emergency situation where they might not have one and their purse or the backpack or whatever So I think as a mom of teenage girls and A woman who's been through all this. I think it's super important that we have them available in the place of use And maybe providing some flexibility but not enough for to drive a you know truck through But I wanted to ask you since you're an elementary school nurse One of the things we were talking about right now is that the bill was originally drafted just as high schools And I think we're all in agreement that we should add middle schools But I'm curious about if you think we should just say schools in general or if there's some great How should we treat? And we specifically identified that that it's it's not just um High school. Yeah, because you may not be may not begin may begin as early as eight Which is It's elementary school essentially and may not start until Someone is 18 or 19 years old Which is much later than high school. So we don't want to limit it. We would encourage you not to limit it to just high school because If we're going to make them available to the girls, they need to be available Whatever school they're in So that's actually a very good point So I don't have to really answer for how to make it vague enough that it's available and there's some autonomy with the school um, but some Direction to make sure that it's not just in the nurse's office Yeah, yes. Yes. Sorry. I'm beca mccray and I am the middle school nurse at Edmond's middle school in Burlington um, and my thought on that question is We have a lot of data about free and reduced lunch and we know that this particular Um period poverty does affect that population And so maybe having some sort of ratio if yours if your school has so Whatever percentage of free and reduced lunch you get so many you have to provide so many product And making it a ratio of that nature Um, I'm not sure if that's Possible, but it's an idea and I think that You know, it could be something as simple as you have to provide it in the majority of your bathrooms for women and gender control which would Allow for you know Saying we don't need it here. We don't need to hear but we still have to hit most of the bathrooms available to these You know women so that's a possibility. I think it's a good thing to keep in mind that There's a socioeconomic Factor to it that we should take I think the other thing is is when you say that you have to supply all the bathrooms My my building has many bathrooms And so the budget when you look at the budget factor right now the budget Comes out of the nurse's budget and it's just whatever I supply with whatever budget I can But when you're looking at a school that has many bathrooms They have to put more into that than a school that only has one bathroom For example, and so I think it really depends on the school's population and the Poverty level of the school as well as how many bathrooms they have Mm-hmm We also talked a little a little bit about Should it be the school district's responsibility? Should it not be a state responsibility? To provide financially Oh, I I think it's the district's responsibility in the same way that it is from all Any any kind of So we've been trying to find out that there's very little difference between toilet tissue and Brand this product so the state doesn't get involved in Paying for other supplies but I think We have heard that the there is concerns on the part of the school boards that The dispensers and these products do represent a cost. They want us to keep that in mind I think the dispensers would be a one-time cost or You know one time every 15 years or whatever They tend to be pretty durable when low tech So unless they get vandalized, I think you can assume that they're going to be useful over a long life And you know, I just don't think the expense overall is going to Drain anybody's budget whereas now it is draining some nurses budgets, right? Which is not right I think this is going to sound kind of funny, but It's not meant to be I don't know how many women's bathrooms you've been in with the dispensers Just we went into the bathroom upstairs. There's a dispenser in there. That's It's empty. So the the supplies are on top of that Many of these dispensers are I see all the ladies nodding for this I guess the question's so good Many of these dispensers are designed by a company for their product, right? So we don't want to get anybody stuck into Sure, we can give you a free dispenser, but now the only thing that's going to fit in it is our product Because and again, those decisions would be individual school boards. Exactly. That's we would prefer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah I have a thought about that Is when I think about how schools are designed a lot of times we have a middle school in the high school or we have First and second grade wing kindergarten wing Five and six. So when I think about accessibility I wouldn't want a younger student in a middle school to have to go to the high school to get product So, um, I don't know if there needs to be language around, you know That type of thinking I don't know what it would be, but it just came to my head Well, I think we've we've generally done an agreement that we would stretch it to middle schools I think the question that's still on the table is should we be trying to hit the Six fifth and sixth graders who might conceivably Be in need I think if we're normalizing it, we don't want fifth and sixth grade Young women who start to menstruate to feel embarrassed. We want them to know, okay This is expected to happen or it might happen for you It may not happen for you and there could be signage with it so that they know how to use it They can but if you don't know how to use it the school nurse is available This is where you go to ask questions to get accurate answers and that sort of thing So I'm a big proponent of making sure that fifth and sixth graders have But I would also add that if we're normalizing it for the rare third grader who gets their period To have those products available in an elementary setting in a normal way They're not going to feel like they're an abnormal Statistic or that this is happening to them and no one else So I do think when we talk about normalizing it really does need to be in all schools yeah well So we've heard from everybody With only one person in the witness chair Is there anybody we haven't heard from This issue Yes, no, we're we're kind of to you. I mean of the school nurses I'm sorry Yeah, go ahead. Okay You probably haven't had a chance to look at this language because I think you were just invited in to talk about menstrual products Just fun, right? Yeah We're kind of the way You know, we all do it but That we in this miscellaneous bill that has the language on the menstrual products In schools is also some language about school wellness policies I'd kelly. You may have been involved with mary on doing the one in the acsd. I know Exactly and so we have some language that was brought to us by the american heart association regarding aoe creating a model wellness policy and using this kind of measurement and Framework that they're recommending and since you're here I'm wondering if one of you or all of you could take a look at the language and And let us know what you think Did you look at it? Well, we looked at it at the time, but we weren't quite sure about it. We weren't like We wanted to ask you what your time frame was and if we could take longer to look at it We also have other nurses that probably know that more than us for That might be more of a better fit to speak to that That's fine. I just think you're a relevant You are a relevant group of people to hear from on a wellness policy care school. So thank you. We appreciate that Yeah, and um, is that the updated? I don't know. It's in yellow It is updated language. Okay. Yeah, so this um, this tool that they're recommending this rubric Is I think supposed to be better than the one they first suggested this one has a broader definition of well-being and health so it includes a mental health piece But I'm understood that you didn't come prepared to testify on that But we do have a school nurse who's very Involved and interested in that and he specifically said if you talk about this, I'd love to comment on it So, um I'm not sure what your time frame is, but we could give you his contact information We certainly have another week or two Okay So if he wants to um So you have the language shared with you by email If you want to just pass it to him Sure, he can either write us testimony and send it to genie No, it does Or he's welcome to comment and speak to it In person whichever he prefers Okay, and kelly, I think really interested since you just went through this process What you think of this Yeah Or u.m. Mary, maybe yes. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Okay. Thanks so much. Appreciate it and um Stephanie The Mount Medical Society Also wanted to speak to this bill. Thank you. Although he's loved with ladies already said most of I'm going to be very short Most of what I already um wanted to say But so Stephanie winters with the Mount Medical Society also would be American Academy of PE efforts in Vermont chapter And also representing today The american college of obstetricians and gynecologists in Vermont who actually brought this bill to my attention This bill was passed in new hampshire last year. So we have a A little bit of a competition in my eyes that we should have passed this First so supporting this bill wholeheartedly You know the the reasons that we are fully supportive of this is that this Bill would provide equal access to all students regardless of their socioeconomic status Ministeral products are necessities not luxuries And having products available in the restrooms you really you talked about having them in the nurses office versus the restrooms And we do feel to be strongly that they do need to be available outside of the nurses office It's more of a makes It makes menstruation more normal Judgement free reduces stigma. Um, you know, there's just a number of reasons having them in the nurses office Is also important as well, but having them outside would be really important And so I would just say that we um, we support expanding to secondary schools certainly To elementary schools as well. I think we just want to make sure that these products are available Statewide so and we thank senator lengths for Perfect Nice any questions for 70 winters Thank you, sir. Appreciate Um Is there anybody else who wants to speak to this bill? I just had a question. Yes, um Jeff francis from the superintendent's association. I I appreciate the um Level of interest that's exhibited here the support I've had occasion to work with some of these nurses Which is I found delightful because their experts as you try to navigate toward conclusion And this is just a concept. It's not a recommendation. What about language? It says availability in a majority of bathrooms in accordance with a plan developed in consultation with the school nurse Yeah, I was thinking Is that way ripped that up? Does it say all schools because I think it's really important Well, I think so, you know, it's I'm a learner right the all schools piece Like and forgive the detail that we pursue this with but you have k1 k2 schools, right? So I'm not sure about the if this is a I don't know whether this is a student focused bill or not, but if you're talking about student bathrooms I think that the Majority minority what number of bathrooms is something that the school nurses are probably best well equipped with eyes on So I wouldn't I would not I would and you you know I wouldn't want to see a school administration and nurse trying to figure out how to work I figure out a work around a majority and availability In a school where that didn't make sense So I don't know what the line of demarcation is with regard to a majority of bathrooms But I'd like to think that common sense would prevail and the nurses who I found to be Extraordinarily practical in the way they approach their Work would be able to advise on that, but I also appreciate the committee's interest in not wanting to But Address the the the matter Insufficiently, but I don't know what I don't know I mean, it's good point. I don't think k through two we really need to But in in a school where you have a mix that includes fifth and sixth graders Then I think you need to yeah me too, and I don't know whether they would say that that was I would I would defer to them in terms of Well, you know majority or not, so okay All right, well We might actually want to although I hate to suggest this but have like a legislative intent or something Couple of sentences to make sure that You know that they didn't they can carry it out the way they want to but this is what we want Right. This is what I'm trying to achieve. Yeah I don't think that's a bad idea just to stay what we've said a number of times Which is the idea is to make it a normal part of school Um Okay, I have one other question. Um in terms of public private parochial Are we talking about all schools or just public schools? And has anybody thought about that it's always the 64 thousand dollar question because In Vermont, we have a segment of schools that are called approved independent schools Where you can tuition your kid to that school so public money is following them They tend, you know in some ways to be Left outside of the regulations that generally govern public schools But in a case like this, I don't I don't see a reason why they should be left out of this this bill Because we're talking about thousands of Vermont students so Um, I would be also also have school nurses. So I would like if that language would make sense in any type of spirit. Yeah, I would be all for including Approved independence under this language. That's just a step. We have to make sure we Cover with the witnesses Jeannie. Yes, could you ask? Milmore If he would like to testify or Um, can't give us the names of current Love is for approved independent schools To speak to this bill you have mills contacted Okay, and then we can do that the next time you take it up Great question. Thanks. Could all schools have a school nurse? Oh, we would love to talk to you about that Because the answer is no That'll part times it would have to be in the school district that you would refer to not the individual school Not in every case the jeffrin supertenant association. That's a good question Even though not every school has a school nurse. There's a school nurse associated with every school There's not so when you get to the notion of consultation Correct me for mom. There would be a school nurse available for consulting on the The plan You can put su but the school quality standards still have a ratio of nurse to students One of the reasons why Su's not relevant. Not always su and sd are used synomously in the law But yeah, but The school quality standards still have a ratio requirement but If I may what they wanted to talk to you about is that in some instances you're reduced to Not part week part day nurses in certain schools because of that ratio And the ratio looks at numbers it does not look at Acuity of the students and the requirements of the help that's there So Just another big topic on a national level. So my first nurse job was a half day a week at lincoln That's all they got is a half day. So how would I be able to educate? How did they realize they have access to a nurse? I mean, so that is Yeah, yeah, and I mean this is the Joy and the problem of wrong schools Is everybody's different some are so tiny and they're getting by on the street strain On the other hand, we graduate record numbers of kids from high school at least Partially because of that kind of crap rude Philosophy so double itch. Yeah Um, well, thank you all. I really appreciate you making the trip and hopefully you'll be pleased with the final product We will take your advice and Just advice and make some changes to the language Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read what we wrote. I have not I would encourage you to do that. Okay. There's not a whole lot different in there, but we've expanded a little bit on some of the Rational yeah, good. No, thank you. Thank you I tend to use things like this when I present something on the floor When I go to talk to the other senators on the floor about it I've pulled these out then the night before and steal some of your language from my Presentations Hopefully you'll steal some of our language for them Okay, thank you. Sure. Thanks I do on business is Gini and I I'm working with this because her system is like completely It's not my system, please. Well, I just know she has to right Interface with is very obstacle to not lend itself and does not want to be I see That's what happened in Iowa So it's maybe in another hour and a half. They'll tell us to maybe they won't So, um, we're done for today then and Tomorrow we'll get back to I want to do hopefully Jim and I maybe can have a draft of that public school healthcare benefits Maybe If we can then we can talk about that We will Discuss the library bill tomorrow. I'm not sure if we'll Mark it up in both but we'll have a discussion I may have another item to add to my agenda tomorrow Wait, can I just ask you when what's your timeline on the leading study? And are you talking about a little bit of caucus? So I'm I'm meeting tomorrow with Chloe from JFO And I want to see what she's Done for me in terms of creating this phase in And so assuming that she's created something that's usable understandable that looks The way I want it to look because You know how it is something like this you put it out on the table It gets into a new story the headline Picks up on one little piece of it and poisons the well So I'm trying to be careful in terms of what actually Goes out So there are simulations in the study itself But whatever we put on the table is going to be pretty quickly picked up and It's it's a little bit um Of a potential flash point obviously because Of the different communities and how they'll fare under the new formulas So assuming that it looks good tomorrow then my attention would be By the end of the week, maybe friday we'd take a chunk of the time And talk about this phased idea of the of the waiting proposal Have a general discussion about the waiting study itself What people feel like the results of the were how accurate do they feel they are? With chloe here with chloe here and to what extent do people feel motivated to to act on now because they're they're You know in the house for instance there are committees that are Giving every signal they don't feel there's any reason to act on it now I don't agree with that myself But I don't want to prejudge where people on the committee. Yeah, um, okay and then also Discuss a little bit caucus the school construction stuff. Yeah, and my impression about what they were doing Whatever it is over in the house was Somewhere I actually it's unclear to me how much they're actually doing on this issue And it's a couple committees that are looking at it. I think it's their Whatever my intention is to let them go first. Okay going back to my Initial discussions with Kate about this year and she wanted to pick that up Um, I think that makes sense because They're ways and means committee in particular But also their appropriations committee Are much rockier shoals than ours. They killed those Over their routine. Yeah, I think it was their ways and means that was looking at it and their education because I had a meeting yesterday with my superintendent in my district and they You know, we we were sort of talking about the Sort of big picture things and this came up as one of those things where I'm hearing from them that they would like more state oversight guidance in this area because it is so completely It's another big equity issue that there are districts that are able to pass these large bonds And then there are districts that struggle and struggle and struggle And the ones that do pass the large bonds are doing it on the backs of taxpayers. Exactly. So it's raising everybody's costs and And having some kind of as we talked about in caucus some kind of priority List for it. Yeah, and the AOE doesn't even have a staff does this kind of thing So wondering if if the house doesn't go forward with anything if there's any way we could put something at least to get A study or something in on the books that we could start this conversation It's a multi-year kind of thing. Well, we have Our miscellaneous. Yeah, and so Even if they don't put out a miscellaneous bill our miscellaneous bill will come back to us So we will have a chance. Yeah, you know, there's nothing in there that's That's going to cause them to hold it up on a thing so We would have theoretically a chance at the end at least one bite To put on a piece of language. They would be in full agreement. Whatever it is that is the education committee But I'm I'm confident they'll do something on it some some piece of language at least Because they've been Taking testimony since last year. They they took a lot of testimony last year from facilities managers Right because it's not only just construction, which I think the moratorium was on new construction building School building, but there are all this deferred maintenance. That's killing schools at this point Yeah, and you know people are doing it in like Burlington bonded for 70 million South Burlington's asking for 209 million So As I said in caucus, I think it's better For the state to have a seat at the table where the state is working with these kinds of requests and maybe You know has some saying Spreading them out or we'll help you this year. We'll help you that year As opposed to now. It's just people don't get any help at all. So they just do whatever they They want. Well, they do whatever their taxpayers will approve because I mean, I have one district in my senate district that has I think Three four times gone out for a bond for a high school that is falling apart. I mean, it's it's really bad And it's failed at the time and so they then they see the chitman county districts pass these big bonds and they're like Why can't that be us can't even get a tiny slice of that Yeah that money so And yet their tax rates are going up. So it's it's causing equity issues around the state and I agree And so having I think you're right a very short form bill where you task AOE with developing you know, not 10 pages of rules about it, but very Quick understandable criteria on which projects we're prioritizing and why So for instance if the school is in danger of losing their accreditation Because of the physical plant of the building Then we help, you know, or if you were a newly merged district And you needed a new building because you're putting all the kids into one building. Maybe that's a situation that triggers Help the bonding But they should be able to develop a quick rubric for Something that would sift because there'll be a lot of requests Hundreds of requests could you sit it down so that every year there are Five that that rise to the top and we it's not like we'd be we'd be helping The vast majority, but we would be back in the business of under certain circumstances Helping people with their construction projects I almost when we're doing act 46 and show them with governor. I almost have them convinced to Have the state step in if you voluntarily went along with act 46 And you needed a new high school and your high school was At a certain advanced age then the state would step in and Shaman people were really serious for a while about, you know, so many millions of dollars of bonding capability that they would use to leverage this Larger set of bonds and then they pull back at the last minute because I mean basically for the same reason deaf pierces Yeah Do we have any To look more I think years So here's my issue, I think if we send that You've got bobby on appropriations And he will he'll be actively pushing for it. I I think Maybe it might have a chance, but certainly Nothing else that we send them So Just that, you know, the tuition is all out of the No, well, I'm just excited. Yeah, so I mean It's just from the info, you know As you take money out of the general But I did speak with Jane about it Which about the tuition free bill. Yeah, I just had a conversation. Yeah, she was she was very adamant that there had to be a source She was But yeah, no, I I mean she she basically said that but she Anyway, you and I can talk it later, but um, The universal schools bill as it is right now I can't support so it's too much It would be really hard for my districts and if they were cut teachers in order to do it I mean I talked to them yesterday. They were really Well, the the estimate went up 20 million dollars. Yeah, it's like 40 million dollars. It's crazy. Yeah, we haven't actually done that But Ted made clear that aoe was going to come in with a projection that was 50 million plus And we have initially heard 20 So I I agree with Ruth. I think it's uh It's just the sort of thing that would it would commit us to a massive expenditure and I just can't see any of the stuff that we've worked on as a committee Overcoming that you know if they did decide to do this the school lunch bill after school three college We are doing the the lunch Local foods incentive school meals bill in ag we took a lot of testimony on it this morning The percentage of local stores. Yeah the percentage which is a much cheaper bill And I think that we can get Bobby on board with that one so we can you know, then he'll be on board with an ag bill Not an ag bill. You can notice money for schools And that we can take some provisions. I'm still committed to taking some of them So one thing that we can do I my sense is that those are not on the committee to pass out The universal pretty much do we have that? Where's that Bobby? Yeah, I was going to say if Bobby had it he could just for me in silence And let ag do with it what they could But Yeah, I I can't see passing me out. How do you feel about that? I don't know. I think it's a great idea. Yeah, just I was always concerned about money. Yeah, where that's coming from I always thought I should come within Spoke the money that they get now, but It's climbing like that at the expense another 20 million or more There's not just how many times can you cut the pie? You know Mm-hmm Okay, well, we we don't have to decide right now, but it seems like that's kind of where we are on that But the the local sourcing We better quality. Yeah, we don't need to see that bill Unless we want to I mean if we want to use it as a vehicle for something else You could ask Bobby. Yeah, take it in here, but I think that we were having a we Testified All the usual suspects Maybe you could just bring it in You know Ask jenny if she can make copies and we could just do a drive by one day just a quick look so we can save Renner Yeah, we are getting testimony from a we on thursday, and then I think we'll probably make changes and then Yes, okay Yeah Okay, thanks