 Welcome back to Senate Education this Wednesday, February 21st. S172, an act relating to education of rights of children who are deaf or appearing for a deaf blind. Ms. Garces, thank you for joining us. I've been making our way through this bill for a couple weeks now, just looking at the issue whether and I think one of the big things is what needs to be done out there to make sure that students are receiving what they need to receive so they can experience excellent education. I appreciate it. For the Director of Policy Education and Athlete for the Vermont Human Rights Commission and I am so thankful for being here today. I think so our mission of the Human Rights Commission is to promote civil and human rights in Vermont. The Commission enforces jurisdictional law for investigations, consolations, litigation, education, and training as well as advocating for policies and legislation to protect the most vulnerable Vermonters in that spirit. We believe that every child serves equal access to the education and this bill is a crucial step in ensuring that children who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf, blind have educational support they need to thrive. This then seamlessly complements the Individuals with Disabilities Act idea and serves to address the specific needs of the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf blind students in Vermont within a broader framework. The Human Rights Commission has investigated and is currently investigating a number of complaints involving deaf and hard of hearing students who feel they have been denied services by school administrators and their teachers. We have also seen complaints of students who believe they have experienced harassment and peer abuse because of their hearing. Unfortunately, because we must maintain the confidentiality of these complaints and the students' identities are not able to go into great detail about these complaints in this form. When ACWAN submitted our final report, William Perish, the Legislature, collaborated with Deaf Vermonters Advocate Services to gain a big understanding of the unique needs of our deaf and hard of hearing and deaf blind students. Furthermore, we recommend the establishment of a statutory policy aimed at providing comprehensive support to these Democrats. I am confident that they feel aligned with the needs of the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf blind community. ACWAN showed me a deep understanding of the importance of language diversity, recognizing it as a crucial element in a student's educational experience and academic success. We define language diversity as a concatenate wide range of communication systems and expressions, including official languages, endangered languages, indigenous and marginalized languages, dialects, and non-verbal languages, and communication. Their respect for and preservation of language diversity are fundamental to eradicating bias, racism, and discrimination of fostering practices of inclusion, equity, and diversity. So I took from the bill just a few points, just to access some of it about what we do see. Before you do that, you just set the stage that'll help me in terms of the bill. Are you here to say, yeah, we need S172? Sorry, yeah, we are here to say that. And one of the issues, if I may, has to do with despite what the law is, something is not being enforced. And this will, I'm just thinking, you must understand her, she was explaining the bill on the floor, this is going to keep the back up. Correct, correct. And I think we have to look at the history of idea, the law, and all the work that Vermont has done to advance the rights for students with disabilities and people with disabilities in general. And there is this God that still exists that before the death of our parents, especially after the close of the death of the school. And what happened after that. But I think it's really important to this bill really upholds and allows the students with support. Again, if I may discuss this, are you going to recommend any changes as it's introduced? No, I am not. I was merely kind of looking at the bill and to just highlight some of the gaps that exist. And, you know, I don't have to read them. I did submit it. And we have it. It's very offensive. Yeah. And then I also share a book chapter that is online, that is about a special education law. And the new idea for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, it really just walks you through about what ideas and what is needed. And why some of the things and some beautiful case studies about unique communication needs that, you know, really highlight the need for this. And so I think this chapter kind of gives you a little more of what is needed. So I'm sure you continue and tell us however you'd like. So, you know, in some of the pieces of the bill, I just took a few that I think we see as the high quality ongoing and fluent communication. There's discrepancy in quality of communication support provided by different schools. So, you know, again, we're talking about equity issue that some schools might provide something that I want others. And what this bill is going to try to do is equalize that, right? While some schools might sell in providing effective communication, others may lack insider resources or training. Training is really a key piece in all of the things. This decides how to result in unequal opportunities and outcomes for students that depend on their school requirements. And so I believe this will arise will address that placement in the least restrictive educational environment and services and accommodations based on individual needs. You know, a few people testify it's already this already supposed to happen. The reality is that, you know, sometimes it's easier to look to play the students somewhere else. And that's my words. One of my words is so if a student in one school, you're a high school student, you just moved to town and you're in this district, I worry about kids being mistreated saying, okay, we're not afflicted. This bill of rights would say you're going to become equipped to have this. And I know people want to talk about cost of things. But I'm not saying on this committee, but this is one of the things that I recognize would cost something to get people training. But it's right to do. And yeah, and reinforces that in court. Often with Act 1, that that's what we always heard said, only one student, right? Well, that's it and matter. Sure. And the families matter. And we should, you know, this should be the aim for us to be a sports student. Educators and service providers train to work with them and her parents to them. You know, we know and I acknowledge that we have challenges right now in our current teachers, that the number of teachers that we have license and follow up. But we really need to aim just as we are saying educators need to be aligned with Act 1 and the principle is the same in this case. We can differentiate that equipment educators with specialized knowledge and skills, we can ensure that these students receive the tables of what they required to drive academically. You know, I don't like to share personal stories, so I'm gonna do it. When my son, my son had a good one. When he was young, he was, he had such a hard time, he couldn't speak. So that was like hard. And he was so frustrated. He would scream, we couldn't communicate. I never knew when he was hungry, I was staying home, trying to figure it out. Some angel lady who was like one of our therapy said, sign language, you need sign language. And it was like he could speak, in fact, he screamed a lot. And so we got, I was part of the only regress change, which is an exchange, it's a nonprofit exchange. I was like, who can teach me sign language? And eventually I realized that it could be covered through whatever insurance we had. And we got the money to call him, teach him. And he learned about 80 words within two weeks. He was so hungry to be able to communicate with me, to just be able to say I'm thirsty, I'm hungry. And that saved us really, like all of our family, my daughter who was two years older, learn sign language, we had a video, you know, we started, and he started to thrive. I was sharing how it was at that point. He was two and a half. Okay. So turn three, then the school took part of the individualized educational services. But I noticed in like the preschool, and there was a lot of pushback, like he's never going to learn how to speak if you continue to sign. And thankfully sign language instructor was like, no, tell them if you will. Like, you know, he needs to be able to communicate in that setting too. So they should also learn some words, specifically get hungry. I'm thirsty. I need a diet for a change or whatever it is that he was needed. So I, you know, I, so when I, when we talk about new presentations, it's not like everybody has to learn how to spell, which is like the basic principles around that. And so that for me, when I was writing this, that's the one, like, I just kept thinking of that. And just like, how important it is just for like, all of us to be like, this is a language, right? Like, it's so important for our stuff. With that, that I will, the next one is the exposure to deaf and hard hearing role models. And our discussion during Act 1 meetings will emphasize the little need for positive role models to share similar experiences and identities with those with marginalized identity. For the deaf, hard hearing or deaf blind students, they have sense of such role models, with students without mentors and inspiration to overcome challenges and pursue their goals. Sponsorship to successful role models within their community can significantly impact students' self-esteem, confidence and sense of belonging. Even if there's only one student in school, can creatively address this challenge by collaborating with community members and integrating relevant content into the particular. By fostering this connection, schools can provide invaluable support for inviting the students on their journey towards success. And I don't think that's, it's, we have a good community. There's a really good community that can provide those access points. And you just curriculum, like, thinking about that. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. I just want to clarify or confirm. I mean, I'm thinking about super small communities that just may not have a role model somewhere in that community or even nearby. And if the content is in the curriculum, like the way you're reading this bill, you know, if it's books about role models or a movie about, or, you know, something that doesn't involve an active person being there because they're not available, would that be covered? So, I'll give you an example with outright Vermont. They provide invaluable support to schools when working with students from LG. Having affinity spaces, having a curriculum, there's like a lot of alignment around that. So that's the way. So yes, I think that will cover it. And I think to show about the creativity that can happen in small communities, when we're doing the last committee on student protections, one of the recommendations in that report is for the agency to do kind of like the power, like for the power mapping. It's like, who's out there? Who in our state provides or supports with services? Like, so that families and like the school can say, hey, there's the voice and hands organization that has been here. Like, how we can collaborate. And I think that we have clearly made things with the ability of rights organizations in our state that can provide that pathway, that building is entirely, you know, eventually hopefully every school has those role models. But right now, when we have this, that's kind of things that are ways to do it and be improved. Did that answer your question? Did that approach, like? Direct and appropriate access to components of the educational process. Again, this kind of helps to deal with the lack of uniformity across districts, which contributes to an equal access. So I know you have this and I've always, I don't know how much I have, but yeah, about, okay. So I mean, you have it. So you have this and I think I could focus those minutes and the tool fetus also that I think are really important. I support like the state board really doing something around it. But I want to add that the complaint process that, you know, a transparent and accessible complaint process on page four, that's their paragraph. A transparent and accessible complaint resolution process is key in some confidence among students, families, and the broader community. It assures them that their concerns will be treated seriously. For page four, their paragraph. It assures them that their concerns will be treated seriously and resolved promptly. However, stories tell us that the current process staff function effectively, often failing to provide satisfactory resolution for families and contributing to harm. Navigating these complaints can be ambush emotionally challenging for parents, underscoring the urgent need for schools and agencies to continuously improve and offer avenues for redress. We must strive for a better process, one that poses great incompetence among families ensures they feel supported and empowered. Ultimately, these contributes to a more positive and inclusive education environment for all people. So I think the agency does a lot of work, but I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done within that complaint process. I said it's always in this community Some of them have to start protecting the students and have institutions, right? So I hope that's helpful. All right, I've got a question for you. So I understand, you know, really the goal of Bill is to completely equalize access across all schools, wherever there's a family that has students that need this type of education. But I also understand there's been shortcomings and they're pretty clear in testimony. And I'm wondering, though, if this is like the current system, if there's a system failure across the state, or if there are enhancements that need to be made or more attention paid to the application of this type of education, or other type of education, I'm wondering what the, I guess I just need a summary that the bill actually would do something to affect that, you know, that would have the desired effect, or whether it was a lapse of supervision of, you know, program at some point or other in a particular part of the state or feedback to a fan. I'm just wondering what the bill really does to address the shortcoming that's contested. Yeah, I mean, I think to start, I thought about this, because I was like Bill of Rights, they're just like, would you watch a year? Now you have the rights, like where there's that accountability mechanism. And I believe, you know, you have that idea, though you have those special education rights currently, but we have seen the gaps, so what is this is doing is covering that. So I do believe actually after I thought about it and read it again, and looked at the last pieces, I did in a printout around that accountability piece, the complete process, that accountability piece. And I think, like, you know, you couldn't have the bias adding a little more structure about like data, which is helpful to see like what for progress, like what maybe there, right, the progress, like there's like reporting progress. So I think it does something. And I think it's now we should watch it. I didn't say we should. Well, I said, I said, because sometimes we do that, right, let me write, there's a bill of rights that doesn't have a I believe this time. So I know I was wondering about, you know, compliance. If I don't even know how many people we have to fit this category to the wrong. And I know that if we're going to require every school, to have somebody that can teach, you know, deaf part of hearing, deaf white people, how are we going to come? So I mean, every school, if I thought every school would require them to have somebody that can do what they do, we're going to put them on the road traveling to where they need to go. Yeah, I mean, I would say that depends on the way I'm reading this. It's, you know, if there is no student falls into that category, I don't think that the school would still be required to have an ASL teacher who meets all these requirements. I mean, I'm keeping in the back of my mind that education in Vermont is a constitutional right? And, you know, for not providing it to an equal level for a student who has falls into one of these categories, then that's a problem. I mean, I support it, and I understand the concept of equality on the part, you know, the practicality of meeting the requirements. If every school had people needed that, particularly attention, then that would be, you know, they would have to be in compliance with it. If every school, I mean, I would say yes, if every single school in Vermont has a deaf student or a deaf-blind student or someone who's hard of hearing, then yes, that school should provide services to that kid though, so that they can have an education. Anything else, Scott? So we've heard from looking at our list, about a dozen people on this bill. We haven't heard opposition. I don't want to say opposition, and I don't want to speak for any entities, but I think that we have heard that there are concerns from different groups that there might be some redundancies. So I don't know if that's not our position, but a concern from them. I mean, I would like to go, even though it may be arduous, I would like to go section by section, eventually, and figure out what is already in law or is already applicable, and then really low down to what really is a gap that we can address with this bill. I think just that the Bill of Rights itself gives you the overall, and it's a compliment to the look, and some of the section already says it's the law, and it's just like the whole thing gives you the package of life. And so legislative, I don't know, like anything that you always mention other bills, and that you cross-reference that where I would have to spend a lot of time there and cancel that. I would cut people. I did not. That's what I want to know. Does anything need to be removed, or is this package complete? Are you right there? Yeah, please. Go ahead. It's just going to say the only criticism that I recall on this bill is that this disability had another disability, as with the Bill of Rights, on each stone. And I'm not saying that that necessarily is a reason to ignore the effort, but it at least resonated that, okay, interesting. So what other disabilities are out there that were not paying proper attention to that? That's a completely simple thing. Thank you for raising that. One thing we might want to do with this bill, given that, is in addition, we might, we won't have time to cover all the issues this year. This one is front and center, but we could put, you know, section two, three that says we would ask the agency of education or the appropriate people to come back. And in January of 2025, this will be other disabilities that we should, something like that. And we have to hear from a couple of other folks, but you've been the leader on this. So you just let us know, in addition to principles, we've heard from principles association, but we'll hear from a couple of other B's, if there's anybody else you want to hear from. And then we'll also take this one. Maybe it makes sense. I mean, this Congress just says, no, keep it as a package, but if you don't want to keep it as a package. Oh, no, I mean, if that's the recommendation. Yeah, yes. But, you know, if one of the B's comes in and they point to a particular line, and they say, this is actually already written, the statute, and you're just repeating it, and a lot of folks are cleaning things up. I would ask Miss St. James, if she knows of anything, not that I don't trust the B's, but she's going to be the one who's going to know. So if you want to interject further, I think we can thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Drake, no, we're actually going to start with you. Thank you. It's going to be brief. It's like a gift. Thanks for joining us. We are shifting. We're going back to a topic. We had a long conversation around career technical education earlier. And one of the things that you'll copy of the bill, that's three or four. Section nine talks about state colleges working with high schools with CTE programs to create course articulation agreements. And I'm going to give this to you because we can take it with you. We just need to know and we're hoping the agency is going to reach out to you. But we would like you all to have an opportunity to look at this language and you could get back to us in the next couple of days, like Friday, the Secretary's coming in. And that is the section. Let us know what the state colleges, it was mentioned. For God, I think it was Senator Gulick said, why isn't he being on this? So do you mind putting me up another copy? I'm sorry, that's three or four, but please, yes, we'll give a copy to you. It's well, I just reminded as I was talking that Senator Gulick was wondering if you'd be an option beaver. So you wouldn't mind taking a look at it as well. That would be terrific. Any other questions while we have for a witness share? Okay. And you said you all are taking testimony on this on Friday. On Friday. Okay. And our hope is to move it toward the end of the next week. That's great. I will take a look into this and we should have more to share. Thanks. And then I will print up a clean copy. Okay. Representative finding Dickinson. The name is familiar, but I don't know if I could put it. Is she in? Is she here? Nice to see you. It's great that you're here. This is a familiar conversation, not so much with this committee, but prior committee, Senate Education Committee. And so we're looking at S238 and we're looking at S216. What we're trying to figure out is, is there a role for faculty and staff on that state versus on the board of trustees? So any thoughts you have as a chair, as a long serving member, I remember first voting for you and I did vote for you. It must have been, I was in the house, first or second, you've been on for quite a while. So please, we are all ears look forward to hearing your advice. Okay. Well, thank you very much. For the record, I'm Representative Linda Dickinson. I mean, it's my little name. I'm representing Salem's town here in the house. I have been here 16 years. This is now my 16th year. I've been on the board of those trustees. I've been a psychologist for 12 years. And I am currently the chair of the board. I appreciate the opportunity to come today. And I'd like to make some comments about the role of the trustees recent and future efforts to work, make the work of the board of trustees more transparent and read comments on S238. Board of Trustees plays a crucial role in the governance strategic oversight in the state college system. The trustees are the leadership team, the church course of the system. The board shares the decisions that shape how the system addresses the needs of current students and constituents and how the VSCS will transform and evolve to meet the needs of the future. Working with Chancellor, we are responsible for establishing the system's mission, vision and policies. These include academic, financial and administrative policies that govern the institution's operations. We oversee the system's finances, including approving the annual budget, getting tuition rates and ensuring financial stability and accountability. The board also appoints, evaluates, and if necessary removes the chancellor of the system. This ensures the institution's leadership aligns with its goals and policies. It's important to remember that the board operates at a strategic level. The day-to-day operations are the role of the administration of a staff. For the benefit of Vermont, the tower mission statement begins. For the benefit of Vermont, we remain steadfast in our commitment to providing access to affordable, high-quality, post-secondary education in all corners of the state. Board of Trustees of the Vermont State College System is the fiduciary of the system and is charged with the oversight of the corporation. As the governing board of the system, the board is the final authority and is held accountable for both the system and the institutions within it. Since 2021, much of the work of the board of trustees has been focused on supporting the transformation of the system, which has been necessary to ensure high-quality rural education for our students. High-quality education. Would you say rural education? Well, we are rural campuses. We have students from all over the state and we have campuses and sites all through the state and all different districts and counties of the state. We have had to make difficult decisions to preserve the system, but the intentional action taken and the commitment shown by the board of trustees has contributed significantly to our successful work on transformation thus far. We embrace this transformation wholeheartedly. It has been a tremendous time of uncertainty for students, faculty, staff, and our communities as we've navigated the past few years. We are in a stronger position today thanks to the investment of the legislature and the partnership of the state and this transformation will be successful. We have a lot of change ahead of us and we appreciate your continued support as we navigate the years ahead. And as a board, we share common goals with all members of the Vermont State College system family. We want to maintain our campuses, our programs, and opportunities for Vermonters all through the state. In recent years, we have made a concerted effort to improve the transparency of and access to the work of the board. Recent activities include implementing virtual wide-streamed meetings. This has not only increased board participation, but also increased access to these important meetings for our faculty, staff, and community. We are moving public comment. We did move public comment to the beginning of the meetings. This gives trustees the benefit of the public's insight before critical issues are discussed. This was a change that was made at the suggestion of a staff member, actually the staff federation president. And it was a really good idea. And we have increased our, greatly increased our participation in that public comment part, which is really important. In addition, the faculty and staff liaisons have been appointed to the education, personnel, and student-led committee. This model has been successful and you heard from Chancellor Mowk last week. She is looking into expanding the practice for the rest of our board committees, regardless of what happens with this bill. I can speak from experience. The committees are where the bulk of the work is done, so this is important. We want to keep evolving to make the work of the board more transparent for our communities. We hope that these changes will offer an opportunity for faculty and staff to have increased input into the work of the board and enhance our collective transformation efforts the benefit of our students. Comments on S238. If your committee decides to pursue S238, I would like to offer the following considerations. S238 proposes adjustment in the composition of four trustees and would cut the number of legislative trustees in half, from the four who currently serve, down to only two. Our legislative trustees are a critical component of the board's makeup. I do not support reducing the number of legislative trustees. The Vermont State College system was created by the legislature and as such robust legislative oversight on our board of trustees has greatly benefited the health of the system. Our legislative trustees have served the system well and I believe their contributions were essential to the health of the system moving forward. And in closing, thank you again for having me here. We are grateful for your shared vision and the goal of the thriving Vermont State College that puts our standards with students at the center and meets from honors where they are with affordable high quality higher education. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Why are four legislators more important than having our faculty and staff? Well, for one reason, we are a state component of the state. And so the legislative trustees, just like they serve in other public institutions, are in contact day-to-day and the means of the state and the means of their constituents. And they are in a position to actually have some impact on what actually is being done in the legislature. We only have four of them. Other institutions have more than that, but we have to work two or three years. So you couldn't do that to the legislature? Thank you. But I think that we've got geographic distribution and experience distribution as it works out all four of our trustees come from different parts of the state. And that's important because you don't want to forget Bennington or the Northeast Kingdom or other parts of the state. You wouldn't want them all like in Chittinac County or two of them in Chittinac County who want to be distributed throughout the state, which is also, I believe, a requirement for our trustees for all the other positions as well. It's something we work at to make sure they're represented. Who provides oversight on spending? We provide oversight on spending. We have a CFO and we don't do it all south. We're not big, big people. But we have management administrators and they're accountable to us. Thank you for testing. I appreciate it. I think your points are well taken and thank you. But my thoughts are on who has a better idea on the day-to-day activities on these campuses. And we're legislators. We're all very busy. We are doing all sorts of different things. But somebody who is faculty member or a staff member, I feel like they can also provide a lot of insight about day-to-day operations. And so I guess my question is how involved on a daily basis or weekly or monthly basis are one of the legislators on this committee or this board when they're, let me rephrase this question, how involved are the legislators on this board in the day-to-day understandings? Well, we don't work on the campuses. So we do not do the day-to-day. No trustee does the day-to-day work on any campus. We are here as the oversight. We are the policymakers. We're the strategic planners. Do legislators take a lot of interest in this? Do they work hard at it? The answer has to be yes. And I have seen people who, well, I've had several people mention to me that I've got a good time job doing this. But there's lots of other people in the legislature. I see them in the building all the time going on to the legislators and talking about why are you doing this? What is the work with that? What about this concern? And that's not just in here, that's also in our communities. Thank you. So I think, thank you. Sometimes we fail to recognize that pressures of transformation are still on your shoulders and certain respect that. But to the point, I'm going to kind of skate between the two colleagues here and ask if you do you see value in having faculty or staff on the trustee board? I see value in having contact with the faculty and the staff. We are spread all through the state. All of the faculty and staff are spread all through the state for campuses and in different sites. And if we do have representatives on the board for most different geographic areas, some people in the north, they can have someone they can talk to, someone in the central part of the state down in Rotland where there's someone on the board. And they do that contact with faculty and staff. We have different capacities. So yes, there is, there is value, certainly. And we certainly have one of the reasons we change the time for public comment, which is often people from the faculty and staff, the beginning of the meeting. So that we could hear more of them more often. Then when the very end, you know, when everybody's gone home after four hours, we hear that right about five. The year from the students, you know, we have a DPI committee where the students came, many of them were very instrumental in forming and being involved with that formation of issues. And they had a lot of say. So we heard from them often at those committee meetings. So the, the liaison to the committees are really important, you know, and they're, we've had town meetings. We have had project management process that was created as part of transformation, including people from faculty and staff on each one of those different areas of work that they work on. You know, we have administration, academics, IT, finances, facilities, student services, students were involved with that as well. So yes, we do want to hear and we do want them to work together with us. And we're certainly willing to listen and listen and take suggestions. Okay. So, so first, let me say that I think that the initiative that you guys started with having a student faculty and students as well as members in the committees. Yes. We have a student, we have a student trustee that's elected by the Student Government Association. Well, my question's a little different. So you, what you, in your, in your response to, and if the question was, you talk about contact, my question is very specific. Do you see value in membership? Membership? I'm not, I'm not sure we necessarily need membership. Okay, that's fair. I think that there's, there are venues and there's ways that we've been listening to when we're involved with the faculty. They have their own governance structure as well, in fact, essentially. So they have their own avenue to work with people. That would be good. So, given, given that your support of four legislators on the foreign justice system, yeah, I get, it's very clear. But would you, would you entertain retaining the four legislators and adding, you know, two representatives of the faculty staff? I mean, is that, is that, is that like, is that a compromise if you could potentially get your head around? Well, I certainly think you need at least four legislators. I don't think you need any more than that from the legislature. However, you know, that other question of whether you want to add faculty or staff is a policy question that this committee have to decide. Okay, but again, we're really just looking for your opinion. Yeah, I really think that's policy decision that this committee has to decide. I think that can be a tool. Okay, I, I've always struggled with it. Personally, the chair of governance said, yeah, I do believe and generally that the board is there for a reason. Administration does day to day kinds of things. But as you mentioned, this is maybe five figure out where they're at on this issue. We took a lot of testimony a few years ago on this from institutions across the country and really varies. I think the one that stands out to me, not in any way as an, I'm sure they're effective, but the most interesting was that Cornell University requires a descendant of the founder to be on the board. So it's just interesting that there are so many such a range out there. As it relates to legislative trustees, I also, I'm next, I personally out looking to change it. But gosh, I think, I think there's a role maybe for legislators clearly things work at certain institutes and there's probably well, but I wouldn't want a legislator. I'm going to be frank, the board's raised money also, that's part of their job and responsibility, raise money, donate money, all of these things. It's a complex organism within itself and somebody wanted to come on the board and say, you know, what I'd love to do with the state university escape 20 million annually. And somebody said, oh, well, we don't have a spot for you right now. And not that that's happening. But yeah, we all wish it were the case that we don't be fucks for all these nonprofits, institutions across the country. And I guess we're just talking the complexity of what's out there, some of the issues that I have. So another thing you need to comment on, but it's kind of the real world and what we're all facing. Well, Senator, we're someone volunteered to come on our board. We would hesitate for five seconds that they would love to have you come there. That is, let me go back. Please. I don't know that we would want to do that unless we had more detail as to what exactly they were trying to accomplish. Of course. Of course. The primary goal is here to be the higher institution. Well, you're going to be the chairs of others, both in Vermont, of all ages, and all background that we serve and that we have been serving all of these years. And to go on. And they're the people who generally stand Vermont and working. We need those as employees. We need these business people. Last question, I promise. Sure. So if I were to have a question about the financial matters of B.S.C.S., should I go to the Chancellor's Office to find it? Probably the best place to go would be to go to the Chancellor's Office through the CFO. Believe our CFO, COO has been in here and testified with the Chancellor in advance. She is really good. But she would be the one who's the most knowledgeable. We get a report from her at our finance and facilities meetings. We have a chair of finance, you know, we have members of the finance committee. You have the ultimate decisions with the board. We have yet. And the chair of our board is from the bank. I mean, he's more discolored and he's very knowledgeable. We have leadership, regularly leadership people on the board. We have the CEO of one of the hospitals in the state who was on the board from the kingdom. And he's on finance. Don't you rule the chair? I'm the chair and board, but they're on the finance table. I'm on the finance committee as well. But really, the CFO is the person you can speak with. Do you want to find out about finances? I'm sure she'd be happy to explain. Thank you. Certainly. Yeah, I mean, I can't. The point is well-taken about, you know, having legislators on the board and I appreciate that, but I can't see the arm in having a staff and a faculty member also on the board. And I mean, I get that, you know, they're contacted and there's communication and they send suggestions, but it's different to have them in a position where they can also have decision-making power and oversight power or an oversight role in this system. So, I mean, I'm open to making it for legislators or keeping it for legislators. We're going to two legislators, but that's not one I'm still grappling with, but I can't think of anything that would cause harm. And in fact, I think it would be beneficial to have a faculty and a staff member on the board. So, those are my initial thoughts. Well, I know it was a different committee. Yeah. A group of people here before. Yeah. My suggestion would be that you would buy some of those extra on board compositions for universities and colleges or any other non-profit probably, but we'd be happy to give you information on people who really know that are experts in this field. So, if you need that, I'm sure that would be a good talk from someone. Yeah. And we also had a conversation with the House counterparts. In the end, we did pass a bill and the House is generally not interested in this kind of work in. So, it didn't go anywhere. And it was an awful lot of time and effort for something that, again, didn't go anywhere else. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Williams, you have a couple of folks that might want to say a couple of words? I think so. Okay. So, I am truly the absolute my professor. I left my testing one summer in the building. So, I'm reading off from a follow-up from the purple. Yeah. Truly, I do fit that stereotype. My name is Linda Olson and I am a professor at BTS Newcastleton. This is the end of my 29th year there. So, I've been there for a very long time and I also serve as the co-president for higher education for AFT Vermont. And I want to start by saying, I'm not going to go off-script here. I'm just going to start by saying, we love your compromise and we'd be very happy with the compromise where you keep the four-life slayers but have faculty and staff representation. That sounds like a worthwhile compromise to me. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I would like to show you the importance of having the input of student-facing personnel on the BTSU, on the BTSU Board of Trustees. Virtually every decision that has been made that has ramifications that impacted our enrollment over the past four years is because there was not a concerted effort to be on the campuses, to talk to the people who actually do the work on the campuses or to have them come to the board and explain what decisions might look like if they were made. For example, the decision to go all digital library and make that public before actually listening to librarians who thought that would be a terrible idea and also an expensive one. Going with that decision rather than listening to the ones who are actually doing the work and understand the work and that combined with the change or elimination in athletics proved disastrous for us. It resulted in a 20% decline in enrollment. And our faculty at Johnson, the proposal was to change the classification of athletics at Johnson, being a math professor and another professor to a survey of the students who would be impacted to see, you know, I mean, these are people who know how to do surveys to to see what the ramifications of this decision would be. 85% of student-athletes responded to that survey and the vast majority of them said they would not be returning to the main campus. Retention is critical when we're facing all these other obstacles and to make decisions that impact retention will be our death now. It will destroy us. Okay. If the librarians and the faculty who actually did the survey of the athletes were consulted and were able to say this is a bad decision that will harm enrollment, then we might have avoided that situation. We also need people who do the boots on the ground work to put it quite bluntly, because decisions are made without an appreciation of the day-to-day life of the campuses, right? So, for example, virtually all of the positions that were cut were student-facing positions, virtually all of that. Students-facing, faculty and staff positions. There were very few cuts in upper-level administration, but that is where the blow is. Okay. We can provide the data, some of you have been to meetings with the labor task force have heard about this, but we can provide the data to support that. These cuts have resulted in an unbearable increase in workload issues for faculty, staff and staff, but they've also resulted in students questioning whether they want to stay on campus. So, once again, affecting enrollment. Let's give you a couple of examples. On each of the campuses, there's a significant decline in the infrastructure, because this has not been maintained over the years. One of the decisions, I'm going to speak from Passelton because that's what I know best, but this is true on all the campuses. One of the decisions made for the cuts that was approved by the board was to cut Jake Rick, who is the director of physical plans at Passelton. Jake Rick is sort of known as the MacGyver of campus, and he has been able to maintain our campus despite the crumbling infrastructure. So, we have situations at Passelton, just to give you a couple of recent ones. One of them is that one of the residence halls in that hot water for a week. Another residence hall had black mold in the residence rooms, so they had to be moved out, so that could be taken care of. Obviously, that's a health issue. Leavenworth Hall, which is the largest academic building on campus, had no heat for nine days in the winter, and then when they fixed it, we now have 95 degree classrooms and offices in Leavenworth Hall. But I can ask, how do you see the connection to the board of truth? I mean, did somebody communicate to the board? Did the board not get back to people, that there was no heat? Well, I see it as if they had... Well, no, just answer that first. Did somebody communicate? Well, I actually said this to the board. I actually brought this up to the board in public comments. While it was happening? While it was happening, yes. While it was happening, Jake Rick had not been formally laid off at that point. I brought up the crumbling infrastructure, and I appreciate that the public comments come first now, but they don't change. It's become something performative, almost like we can get our frustration out, but nothing has resulted from it. That's a really serious situation. I just want to go back. The dormitory didn't have heat for nine days. No, that was Leavenworth Hall, which is the largest academic building on campus, nine days. Yes. In fact, in the content lab in the basement, it was 42 degrees and one of the classrooms. Were classes being conducted in Leavenworth Hall? They were. They were. Many of us letter students go for a leave because they were wearing their parkas and still cold, but yes, the classes were still going on. The 95 degree, for me, I hold better than hot, so that's even worse to me to sit in my office, which is 95 degrees in the middle of winter with the windows open, and it has to do with just the boiler system that completely needs to be replaced. But if you get rid of the people who know how to at least tweak it or regret it, then you have that situation, right? Chair Dickinson said at one point in the media, she was quoted the same, which maybe wasn't what she said, but this is what was quoted, that the board makes decisions from 30,000 feet up, and that's the problem. That's the problem. And I would say the fiduciary responsibility of the board cannot be met to don't know what is going on on the campuses. That is what they're supposed to do. That is their task to fiduciary health and wellness of the campuses. But if they're not doing that, they're not understanding or they're not being made aware of what's going on at campus on the campuses, they cannot make informed decisions that maintain the fiduciary health. Because when people come, prospective students come, and they see stairs crumbling, or they see, you know, things that are not being maintained, or garbage isn't regularly picked up because we don't have enough staff, then we can't hire enough staff at what we pay to keep the garbage, keep up with the garbage. All of that impacts our enrollment. And laying out student-facing positions, like the dean of students on all campuses, that could not only prove disastrous for the campuses, it could be a huge liability in lawsuit if you don't have the contacts on campus in the case of sexual assault or the case on Passleton's campus of a murder habit. We had a former dean who shot on an adjacent trail to the campus. We need someone to do this hand-on, face-to-face work. So, all of this chaos results in students questioning their choice in college and, therefore, impacts the fiduciary health of the institutions. It's hard for them to justify spending more than $10,000 in tuition and growing student fees. This is another problem when the campus is literally crumbling around them, or they no longer have the academic support they once had, or they can no longer negotiate their FAFSA forwards because the director of financial aid, each of the campuses, then laid off. All of this impacts our students and how able they are to complete their degrees. If we had student-facing faculty and staff on the board of trustees, these decisions could have been avoided. We could have avoided a decision that resulted in 20 percent decline in enrollments. And, by the way, that 20 percent decline was used to justify the cuts that were made. If we had normal enrollment, we would not have had as many buyouts for FAFSA, for example, or as many layoffs of faculty. And one thing that I really want to hammer this on, because to me this is a social justice issue. Our tuition is not affordable for our students still, right? And we continuously provide support for free tuition for CCD students. And I think we should do that. I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is we should be doing the same for the students at BTSU to increase enrollment of students because the student population is very similar. Most of our students are first gen students. Most of our students are Vermonters. We actually have more eligible students just by tweak than CCB does. So we have more low to moderate income students than CCB does. And I think that the divide between CCB and BTSU is an unnatural one in my opinion as well. But all of these things taken into consideration, we can make better fiduciary decisions, better decisions for our students, better decisions for our public requirement to the states if all voices are at the table. So I would love if we made that compromise that you suggested. We would be very happy with that because then we would have those student-facing positions right at the table. What university has done this and it's really taken off and really you mean put back like that? I know of faculty. Okay. I don't know the number for staff but I do know that 26% of public institutions have put faculty representation. That's full voting representation. 26% of public institutions in the United States. In the United States. That's right. That's right. So what I would say is there are other kids that just put an advisory when they have faculty and staff, non-voting faculty and staff. We would like to see voting faculty and staff on the board for the reasons I just mentioned. And that is true at 26% of public institutions in the country. You have about five more minutes. Questions? Very quick. I don't want to take credit for the compromise suggestion. Someone far smarter than me recommended it and I disarticulated it. Okay. Thank you for saying that. We appreciate it. Okay. So you outlined a whole series of scenarios at the campus which are unfortunate, right? But do you feel that the decisions that were made a year ago or a year and a half ago could have been avoided by one or two people sitting on the board when it's majority rules, right? There's no guarantee that one or two people are going to be able to convince the group that their message is correct. No, that's totally true and that's a fair question. I think this is a step in the right direction. I do. But you're right. Unless the person is incredibly convincing, they might not be able to move the board to what they see to be more fiduciary, more irresponsible in terms of the financial health and well-being of institutions. But right now we have no perspective except for the students. The student perspective is good. Remember, the student is a voting member on the board. We have no representation except for the students who typically does a really good job. Our student trustee this year has been fantastic, really, really good. But it seems to me that we would also benefit from the day-to-day lived experiences on the campus on the board as well. And I do think we might have been able to avoid some of these situations if there was some realization that we do have experience that the board should be listening to and tapping into rather than largely ignoring. So does each campus have a student? No, just one student member. Yeah, we'd love more students on both of those. How can you have four campuses? Because the board used to, you know what I understand, go around each campus and have them meet and do that. So that's a 30,000-foot. If you're a manager, you have to direct managers and you're going to be able to do management by walking around. If you're not seeing the crumbling infrastructure and you're not going from your faculty or staff, that's the reason. Yeah, I agree with that. And it was nice when the board would come because there'd be a recession afterwards. They would mingle with faculty and staff. So at least they were getting some insight into the way the campuses were operating. Thank you. We know the situation before us. So we have an opportunity to revisit this question during the week. So if there's anybody else, anybody wants to hear from, given that I would also say we have a lot of bills to get out, we could always, if we need to, the house is hopefully going to send us a miscellaneous education bill. We could always take more testimony after a crossover. But right now, I'm not sure. 238 is a component of Senator Palmer's bill. So do we want to sit down and look at pieces and make one bill out of them? Well, yes. So the answer is yes. We would probably, I don't see us again. I don't think the committee, I haven't seen the interest from the committee, but dissolving the chancellor's position. And then there's the question of giving folks a break from the staff reduction now, which we would have to probably take more testimony after a crossover on that. The thing that I'm thinking right now is really before us is the makeup of the board of trustees and what that would look like in terms of a re-crossover conversation. Yep. So both of the legislators and we're just elected in the House. Do we have anybody from the Senate? We haven't. And we used to have a Senator, I think Senator Bray was on it. I don't know if he's a huge candidate. And the Senate generally does not get elected because there aren't many of us and we're not as, no, no. And so the House generally dominates in terms of those elections. I haven't even seen the Senate put their name forward in a long time because the House has 150 members of this bill that we put in. This drops to the Senate. So is there any requirement that all four legislators be from the House? Nope. If you could run next time, I would certainly vote for you. Sorry, I put sergeant in a week, so I put. Coral. All right. Senator Camus, Chair Koff, I just want William Dickinson, Representative Dickinson speaking. I just want to point out that when Senator Bray was elected, he was a member of the House and he was elected to be the board. And then when he ran for re-election, he was in the Senate. Anyway, down the claims, maybe not. But he lost. I don't remember that. I do remember when he first got elected. It is hard for a Senator to get elected. So we have to wait another year for the next one? Two years for the next two will be after two years. If you really want to be on one of these boards and you're in the Senate, the governor gets an appointee and I would talk to the governor. My words, I don't know. I'll go with it. For me, I'll call it. Yeah.