 Welcome, President Niconde. Hello. How are you guys doing? Thank you for having me this afternoon. I appreciate it. Yeah, we haven't met yet. Yes. I've had a couple of near misses where I've been on. Champlain. Prior to the pandemic where I was doing things on Champlain campus, but good to. Good to meet you. Thank you. Good to see you, Richard. Good. And Susan. Nice to have you with us. Thank you. And Sophia. So, uh, Looks like we're streaming now. So. Senate education, September 15th. Just, uh, two weeks or less than two weeks. Left until adjournment. Finally. Of the 20, 20 session. So, um, I just wanted to begin by. Um, clarifying where we are today in the process, what we're doing and what we're not doing. So at our last meeting, we. Semi finalized some language. Uh, for actual inclusion in the budget. And, um, We didn't vote that out, but we sent it over with our. Unanimous opinion to appropriations. Um, They, um, Accepted everything we did. Um, so they're moving forward with that draft. The full, uh, 53 million for K through 12. The expanded seven million for HVAC. Um, and then all of the policy pieces. There was sort of a surprise in that. Senator. Um, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea after school task force. Because as all of you probably know, The tax and regulate conference committee is coming to, uh, A close. And one of the things that the house insisted upon was. Dedicated money for after school from. Tax and regulate. So it looks as though that will be part of the deal. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. But when we got it over to them, or I think even earlier. They didn't. So Senator Ash suggested that it go into the budget. Along with our other stuff. Um, and I, uh, Ascented to that. The house has now said that they're okay with that. So that will go in. Uh, right after the pieces that we approved. Uh, We're going to go ahead to appropriations about a number of different things. We're going to be starting with the house's recommendation of $10 million. For the independent colleges. Um, we'll also go to a piece of language. That Senator Ingram and I developed for UVMs. Peace in the budget. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Nor has UVM. So it's important to get everybody's. Opinion on that. Uh, and then. Um, what is the other piece. That I'm forgetting. What's that Debbie? Right, Vermont. Oh, outright Vermont. Uh, and the bridge funding. Those have both already been dropped into the budget. Um, and they're already clear on their own testimony on those topics. And they're already clear on those. Um, let's, if we can start with, uh, Susan Stitely. And Susan, I'll, I'll ask you. To, um, maybe introduce the topic and then. Go to your witnesses as you prefer. Um, but I will say that. And I'm going to read this. Because I don't think anybody has it handy. But in the house past budget. There was the sum of $10 million. To be distributed among independent colleges. And this is the wording that goes with it. It says to the agency of administration, $10 million for equitable distribution. And that would be determined in consultation with AVIC. Among the 11 independent colleges. In order to qualify for funding from this appropriation. Colleges must be a Vermont state chartered school. The funds are for the costs associated with technology. For remote instruction. PPE. Cleaning. And room and board refund. And that would be determined in consultation with AVIC. Among the 11 independent colleges. That would be determined in consultation with the agency of administration. And that would be determined in consultation with the agency of administration. Cleaning and room and board refunds when students were sent home. Due to COVID-19. So there were two concerns from the appropriations committee. That they asked us to ask you. One was. Here it allows the agency of administration. Working with AVIC to develop. A quote unquote equitable distribution. And that would be determined in consultation with the agency of administration. Was there a formula that was used for, I believe the 1.5 million. That went out in a previous budget. And could we use that formula rather than developing a new one. And then the second thing is. Senator rash in particular was. Wondering about the $10 million round number. He wanted to drill down into that and find out. Was it a. A precise. A determination that was or. Was it a. A ballpark. So. Susan with. Those questions and concerns in mind. Feel free to. Order the testimony of yourself and your. Witnesses as you will. Thank you. Chairman. And thank you for inviting me. And I am pleased to have Sophie, and thank you for your time. And I'm delighted to have you here. And President Benjamin, a condom here as well. We really appreciate all you have been doing. I know you've been working 24 seven. And it's been amazing work that you're doing. And also just want to mention that I have. We do appreciate the past support that you gave us in particular. The work that Senator Hardy did in June. For possible funding for testing relief. And. I think maybe it's best if I address. The language that you brought up since you mentioned it. Jeannie, do you have what I sent you so that the committee members can see it, the memo that I. Sent for today. Yes, it's posted on our website. If you can you access it or do you want to. Have it brought up on the screen so that you can all see it. Oh, let's send it to Bruce respond to that. Jeannie. I don't find it under today's documents. I don't. I don't see anything. You should refresh. Yeah. Cause I just pulled it up. Okay. One second. Oh, there we go. Okay. And so this would be the AVIC request. Yes, this is the AVIC request. It is revised from what we gave the house and that we've changed the language that the house proposed. So we're going to go back to that. So we're going to go back to that. So we're going to go back to that. And we're going to remind what we were proposing to address some of the concerns that you mentioned, Senator. Yeah. So on page two, section three, it now says to the agency of administration, $10 million for equitable distribution to be turned into consultation with AVIC and among 11 colleges. First, the 10 million was what. I don't know if that was the best for more, but that was all that was available. And we have had over $144 million of losses, which you can see further down on the sheet. So one safeguard is that this discussion will be with AOA, as far as the equitable distribution, but we have added language that to let you know what we would like to consider the factors that we would consider including, but not limited to the cares act funding guidelines, which is what you referenced, Senator. But that, that gives out funding based on only on FTE and benefits the largest institutions with the most students. And we don't think that is equitable. So we would like to add some other parameters around that, creating a floor to protect the smaller schools and also to consider endowment size. And there may be other factors as we get into the discussion of it with AOA and the independent college that we maybe want to add to make sure that it is an equitable distribution. So in addition to that, we added language that the institutions must be accredited before that was not in there, although it's a charter. And rather than having the previous categories that you mentioned, the PPE costs, the remote instruction costs, we're asking that the funds for the COVID related 19 losses and expenditures meet the federal guidelines for funding eligibility. You know, all the colleges are so different. So we have colleges that have no PPE costs. We have some that have no remote learning costs. So, and they really vary on what it is they would need reimbursed for. So putting in that language that it has to be with the eligibility of federal guidelines makes it broad enough that everybody can get reimbursed for what they may need, not categories and make, you know, for example, some of the schools, the smaller schools in particular that didn't bring any students back, don't have testing costs, don't have cleaning costs, don't have PPE costs. So this would allow for everyone to get more of an equitable distribution based on their losses and expenditures. Okay, so. All right. Why don't we hear from the two presidents that you've brought with you today. In any particular order. Oh, something. Why don't you go first? My apologies. I was muted there. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Susan. And thank you to this committee. And thank you. Greetings from Southern Vermont. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all at this extremely challenging time for the score for international training or SIT. And for all of Vermont's independent colleges due to COVID-19. I also want to thank this committee for considering the House of Representatives recommendation of relief funding for our independent colleges. These are extraordinary times. Thank you for considering extraordinary measures. I am Dr. Sophia Howlett, president of SIT in Brattleborough. SIT was founded in 1964 and is an accredited higher education institution. SIT is an active member of ABIC. According to Vermont Department of Labor, we are the largest vocational and training school in the state. We're the largest institution of higher education in Wyndham County. And the sixth largest employer, according to think, Vermont. We believe in the power of diversity, the importance of an intercultural perspective and fostering openness and understanding. Through our graduate institute based in Vermont, our semester long study abroad programs across the world and our certificate for professionals, SIT prepares students to be effective leaders, professionals and citizens. Unlike some of our fellow ABIC members, SIT is a non-traditional higher education institution. Most of our students do not physically reside on our campus and our activities extend from high schoolers all the way through our students' professional careers. However, like all our fellow members, SIT is an active member of ABIC. We believe in the power of diversity, the importance of an intercultural and tuition-based revenue to transform the lives of young Vermonters. Our alumni are community leaders helping each day to make Vermont a better place for all of us. They include Rick Burgfield, the co-founder and executive director of Food Connects. We are also a member of Vermont. And Stefan Gillan, president and co-founder of the Wyndham County chapter of the NAACP and a member of the governor's racial equity task force. As a trailblazing and quintessentially Vermont organization dedicated to promoting international education, our business model is in the bullseye of COVID-19. As the NAACP began to spread, we found ourselves racing to bring home more than 900 students from 36 countries at an added cost to the organization of over $650,000. SIT is no stranger to world wars, civil wars and natural disasters, but COVID-19 has been a truly unprecedented challenge. I think we work quickly in mark to respond to that challenge. Stewarding our money effectively to prepare for a difficult fall, including participating in the federal payroll protection program. But now here we are in September. And as we are all very aware, good stewardship and an effective business model has limits in our present context. Our tuition-based revenue was $48.4 million. This fiscal year, our expected tuition-based revenue is $3.5 million. A 93% drop in revenue due solely to COVID-19, as we are unable to send young Americans on our transformational programs. SIT's revenue losses have been the highest among members, accounting for roughly a third of the total lost revenue. Our consequent restructuring efforts have directly affected 52 of our Vermont staff, and we now have 130 employees based in Vermont supporting our mission and programs. Despite this, SIT remains a significant employer and economic driver in southern Vermont. SIT's revenue losses have increased to over 1,000,000. And SIT's revenue losses have increased to over 1,000,000. And SIT alone is in need of $5.6 million in relief, as this crisis extends towards winter and spring. None of us have been eligible for relief from the state before, despite the serious need. As you know, the House has recommended $10 million in coronavirus relief funding for the independent colleges. Clearly $10 million divided among AVIX-11 members will not solve all our problems, but it will certainly be critical, especially combined with the ongoing individual efforts to restructure and cut costs. We all recognize this is a prime part of our modern reconstruction and transition. It's vital for our survival to adapt. SIT is doing just that, and at the same time, we are guided by our good neighbor policy. We've reached out to Winsome County at a time of economic devastation to bring our talents and experience home. We have set up virtual internships and are partnering with the Community College of Vermont and others to support workforce development. We have partnered with state and local officials to provide dormitory space for exposed first responders and frontline health workers, and offered backup to the Department of Children and Families for daycare and after-school services. Even as we struggle with serious revenue loaters and remain very concerned about the prospect of further layoffs, we continue to look for ways to help our community, even as we look to you all for a helping hand. Thank you again for the opportunity to share with your committee a snapshot of how COVID-19 is affecting SIT. And thank you for considering urgently needed relief of $10 million for Vermont's independent colleges. I strongly believe, and I hope you do as well, that we are vital to the economic health and success of our state now and in the future. Thank you, and I'm ready to answer any questions. And you will also find an attached financial statement of our losses to date. Thank you. Thank you so much. We could probably hold questions until we've heard from President Akanda. Let's do that. President Akanda, I have to say you have the most impressive Zoom background of anybody that I've seen in the last six months. I want to thank you for that. My kids have been really good to me. They keep giving me all these really nice background, and so I'm using them. Thank you so much. Okay. I want to thank you for inviting me this afternoon and for your leadership and hard work in supporting Vermonters during this remarkable time in our history. What we have found is that the COVID pandemic is an equal opportunity pandemic that has impacted every single one of us. But more so, it's impacted higher education more than ever. I'm Benjamin Ola Akanda, president of Champlain College. I began my tenure on July 1, but I've been engaged with Champlain since my announcement on April 20th, and I've been fully engaged in leading our return to campus for preparation and execution. All over the news, we've seen that universities and colleges have become hotbeds for virus transmission. That is not the case for Champlain or any one of my counterparts as part of our organization. Our success has many benefits. More satisfactory education for students and parents, minimizing the adverse economic effects of isolation and quarantine, decreasing the adverse psychological effect of isolation, and showing the rest of the country and perhaps the world that this can be done, but it comes with an investment cost. Our COVID mitigation plans have been extensive and comprehensive. They include aggressive testing protocols, modifications to our facilities, cleaning, disinfecting, and much more. We reduced the number of students brought back to campus by more than 30% this fall to de-densify our residence halls and also to reserve space for quarantine and isolation. I am pleased to share with you that our plan is working. And as of today, we have conducted more than 4,000 tests with only one positive case giving us a positivity rate of 0.02% well below that of Vermont, let alone the rest of the nation. We have made the necessary investments to enable our students to return to campus safely and to protect the health and safety of our community. But they have come at a great cost and the private colleges have been affected just like our public college colleagues when it comes to pandemic-related costs. Champlain has incurred an estimated $12 million in pandemic-related losses. This includes our investments in testing of more than $2 million, $2.5 million in losses from room and board. There was a reform from last spring and another loss from the shift to remote instruction caused from PPP supplies, cleaning and much more. Champlain College and its peers in the higher education sector play an important role in our state's economy. You know that. And we contributed to the economic vibrancy of this community. We are all employers and importers of talent. We educate Vermonters and recruit students to Vermont from around the country and perhaps around the world. And many of our graduates join Vermont's workforce and contribute further to our economy. We are paying it forward. And so we appreciate the work of the committee and we appreciate what you did in June to try to ensure potential funding for the private college we got in testing. Today we ask again for your support and strongly urge you to retain the $10 million allocation for independent colleges for COVID-related funding within the fiscal year 21 restarting state budget. We believe that the strong private and public higher education sector means a strong Vermont for us all. And we believe that at the end of the day, our response to COVID epidemic has been so successful that essentially it has become a competitive advantage for this state and that we can all say without hesitation that coming to Vermont to go to college is the safest thing that you can do in America today. That is a success factor. I thank you. Great, great point. And I know that some, I think President Howlett mentioned or Susan Stitely mentioned Senator Hardy's urging on the testing. That was part of the idea behind that is to make sure that our higher education system writ large was ready for the wave of students coming back. Questions for either of those two presidents or forces and Stitely? Senator Hardy. Thank you. And absolutely what my concern was in June was to make sure that we had the resources for your institutions to be able to test students and staff and faculty as colleges reopened. And I am incredibly grateful that the institutions took that path and have a very rigorous testing protocol. And that was certainly my intention in recommending funding in June. However, I'm not so keen on the expanded request now and the direction it's taken. I do have a question specifically for Sophia or Sophia, I'm sorry. It was unclear to me how many students you have on campus at this time or if you're running any of your programs at all. I was not clear in your testimony. So thank you for that, Senator Hardy. We have no students on campus right now. The students that we normally bring on campus are either our graduate students during large parts of the year or also we have a lot of youth programs and exchange programs. So obviously we went the very safe route of moving our graduate students who were already in a kind of hybrid low res program. We moved that completely online. And then our exchange and youth programs simply haven't been able to happen because those are students coming from other countries. And then in terms of other students, we do actually, and I consider this a major success, we do actually have 28 students right now in Iceland and Rwanda. But that's all we've been able to do out of a normal year of normally this semester we'd have about 850 to 900 students overseas with us. So this is the scale of our problem. Yes. So you're 40, it's about 40, I'm looking at your financial sheet that you presented with your testimony, about $44 million in revenue loss is due to your tuition loss for these programs that you're not being able to run. Exactly. We simply, sorry. So for you and your institution, it's mostly a revenue problem, not an expense problem. It's not just, it's actually both because in terms of we still, just because we don't have programs running, we obviously want to maintain our staff and our faculty because we're aiming to have programs back very soon. And so we have really kind of reoriented ourselves to try and maintain our staff. And as I mentioned, we still have 130 staff members around our campus here in Brattleboro who are working for us despite the fact that we don't have students overseas. So we have expenses and we have revenue losses. Right, but you're the impact, the direct impact based on this financial sheet you provided the vast majority of the impact is revenue loss, not just sense related. Yes. And President Acunde, you said you had a 30% reduction in the number of students on campus. So about 70% of your normal student population is actually present in Vermont. Is that correct? Currently we have about, let me give you the exact number there. They're on our campus as of today. We're looking at 850 students in our champion campus housing right now. And how many you normally have? We probably have double that. And what has happened is that as a result of our de-densification process, going from two in a room to one in a room to four in a quad to one in the quad. We've been very cautious about that and that has essentially cost, that's been a significant loss to us over time. So our impact has been both from the expense side and also from the revenue side. If you want me to give you a breakdown, I'd be more than happy to do so. Well, yeah, I mean, I love the breakdowns. I love the financial sheets, but I was just trying to get a sense of how many students you had back. And you said you had 30% reduction in your student population, but now you just said 50%. No, what we're talking about, you said on campus, because we also have students that are off campus. They did not come back, they came back, but they're not staying with us. They have found accommodation elsewhere. So I was just trying to give you an ideal, the exact numbers of what we're looking at. Okay, so about 50% of your normal population is on campus. Okay. So I mean, well, you know, I've heard comparisons for the private, the private colleges to both other institutions of higher education and also other businesses. And we have obviously provided a pretty good amount of revenue for our public institutions, UVM. And I look forward to hearing from Mr. President about what they're doing and also the state colleges. And, you know, to this point, we haven't yet provided anything to the private colleges. But when we look at you as businesses, the businesses in the state that we have provided grants to, we've owned the highest number, the amount of grant we've provided is only $100,000. For our businesses in the state. And so it's, if you're, if you're trying to make the argument that you are businesses, this would be a far greater amount of money for you than for our regular businesses in the state. We also have only covered their revenue losses, not their expenses in most cases, except for with a few exceptions. So I'm much more sympathetic to Ms. Haule talking about their revenue losses than the expenses of bringing students back to campus. And while I laud the private colleges and the colleges for their ability to bring students back with very few cases, the fact is that they decided to bring students back and they incurred those costs because of that decision when they could have made the decision to bring fewer students back to campus and therefore incur fewer costs. So I'm much more sympathetic to provide to providing aid for revenue loss rather than expenses based on a decision, a risky decision to bring students back. I also, and Susan mentioned this, there are, there are at least two independent colleges that have significant endowments. And I am not keen on providing state funding for businesses, private businesses with huge financial resources. Most of the largest businesses in our state did not get state funding. They did get some federal funding, but this funding I would much prefer when we define what equitable is, is going toward the institutions that have less financial security and smaller endowments to rest on. I just, it's just not an equitable thing to give state funding to an institution with a $1.1 billion endowment. And I will say that as I represent them. And there are others that have large endowments too. So I would prefer that we really scale this down and really define it a lot better what equitable is and what, what we're actually covering because a lot of these expenses were, as I said, because of choices made for the number of students they brought back, not required expenses. Can I, can I chime in briefly? Absolutely. Central Army, thank you. I appreciate your, your concern and your assessment. I, let me suggest to you that when, when it comes to endowments, I think people tend to misunderstand that endowments are essentially available to, to be consumed and utilized for anything that when, when those, when those needs come up. And for, for an individual that have had the honor to be, to, to serve as president of two, two, two institutions, I can say to you, ma'am, that one of the things that gets colleges in trouble is when they use their endowments for things that it was not meant for. The very essence of endowments is very restricted funding. Many, in many instances, scholarships for funded professorships. And so when you start dipping into endowments that are not meant for, for instance, for which they were obligated, you put just, you put your institution in legal limbo. And so I, I'm, I'm not defending anybody. I'm just saying to you that I think it's important that you understand that dynamic and the strictness that comes with those, the, the, the, the purpose is an intent of endowment. Second, on the issue of, of expenses versus revenue. You know, I, I think throughout the process of the summer and engaging with the governor, engaging with Dr. LeMaine and really working with our, our government entities, the decisions that we made in returning to the fall were not isolated decisions. There were decisions that were made in consultation with our state counterparts of the leadership of the government who encouraged that we do what we can, but we do it within the reason of strong medical and health awareness in returning to the fall. And so we felt an obligation. And the obligation is that indeed if we're going to return in the fall that we do so responsibly. And we do so without putting our students in, in arms way. Now, ma'am, if you were, if you could, if you were in a situation that now a couple of weeks into the semester, when we were looking at the consequences of COVID, as, as just, just been astronomical and spread. I would say that we haven't done a good job at that. But I, but I think to an extent, ma'am, we, we've been, we've been very successful to the point where we become the ultimate benchmark in this country for how to mitigate viruses and pandemic. And, and the expenses that we've incurred. I've been expenses because we, we follow directives. regulations. We played by the rules of the game. We've done everything that we can to make sure that first and foremost, it is about the welfare and the safety of our students, faculty and staff, and by extension, our community. And then what we're saying is that give us the same level of respect and support that you will give to our public counterparts. We're all in this together. We're trying to educate the next generation of Americans and Vermonters. And so when you look at our cost, for instance, the revenue loss that we've had for my institution, for fiscal year 2021, lost revenue is $6.7 million. For fiscal year 2021, estimated expenses, we're talking about $2 million. And that expense, a significant portion of that is supplies of PPEs, COVID testing, apps for social, to be able to, for social tracing, and things that are necessary to keep our communities safe. I am with this. There's a cost associated with responsibility. We were willing to take that cost. And we do it because it's not just about us. It's also about the community that we represent. And for someone that came from Missouri, that has seen the level of less attention to details, as I've seen in Sharon, Erin, Bermont, I am so proud to be a member of this community. I'm so proud to be a member of the state for what you guys represent. You guys are the new benchmark. We are now the new benchmark, because I'm not a member of it, about how good this or done. And I would say that you send a very clear message, not just to Vermonters, but to the nation, that you care about higher education. And that the consequences of this will be more students coming to us in the future, because they know that we care. And they know that we're taking care of our own. I thank you. Senator Hardy, you wanted to respond? Yes, thank you, Senator Baruth. President Aconde, I completely agree with you that your colleges did a good job of an excellent job of making sure that students were brought back safely, and that the consequences of an irresponsible protocols were not, at least yet, the semester has just begun, have not spilled into the communities. And I am grateful that you and others were responsible. However, you made the choice to bring students back in person, and therefore, for those costs, that alternative would have been to bring fewer students back and therefore incur fewer costs. So that was the choice that I was discussing would never suggest that you should make the choice between bringing students back irresponsibly and bringing students back responsibly. So but but you incurred a cost because you brought students back when the alternative would be more remote students. And to your point about endowments, I know this is their first time before the committee. And you don't know me, but I have worked directly with college endowments. I know exactly how they function. So I also know that that colleges have more flex many, not all colleges have more flexibility with their endowments than they will let on. So thank you, Susan, I will go to you. I would like to try to move on to our UVM piece and Richard Cape, but feel free to respond. I can appreciate Senator Hardy's concerns. And I agree with the course, President Aconde. I did just want to give a few more details about the endowments. There's only one institution in Middlebury College that has a higher endowment than UVM. And two of our institutions have less of endowment than CCV has. So most of our institutions do not have high enormous endowments to rely on. And to address that matter, particularly, we put in the new proposed language, that endowment size would be considered because we definitely want to consider that and the institutions that have endowments want to consider that as well. So we hope to address that issue with that new language. So I hope that you will consider. So we are of at least two minds about this because I favor the House recommendation for reasons that I'll lay out later when the committee has our discussion. But what I'd like to do is hear from Richard Kate, take a look at the language that was drafted around financial transparency, and then try to reserve time for the committee to discuss among itself what we'd like to do. We have three options on the independent college funding. One is to support the House recommend. One is to try to change the House recommend. And the other is to not address it at all. And we'll see where we land. But welcome, Richard Kate. And Richard, I'm wondering if you had a chance to look at what is posted on our website. There's a document there that includes the paragraph about financial transparency. Have you? Have you? All right, I actually was not aware of something I should have looked at. Okay. Under Debbie Ingram's name, you'll see it says memo. And if you click on that, it addresses a couple of different issues. But this this set of paragraphs came out of testimony that we had earlier in the session responses from faculty and staff around the ways in which UVM was going about dealing with the pandemic financial follow on. And there, I would say you could sum their concerns up under two headings. One, I would call progressivity. And I think the university has done work on the progressive nature of their response to the cuts. The other was transparency. And so what you see here does not address their complaints about progressivity, because some of the actions the university has taken fall under that heading. But you'll see that their language suggested, and I'll just read it. Therefore, Senate Education requests that the following language be included in the appropriations bill has a particular obligation to make it transparent. That obligated as the state's efforts to stem UVM's financial losses, the COVID-19 emergency have expanded for the duration of the governor's order, appropriations, and education committees, as well as the UVM community and the accounting of all funds appropriated. I'm covered by the governor's emergency orders and revenue loss projections upon which the university's present and future budget cuts are premised as actual data becomes available. And that's speaking to two related concerns that people working on the UVM campus felt that they weren't privy to financials, but also weren't privy to what the projections were that were driving the cuts and how those projections would eventually jive with financial reality. So I realize that was your first look at that. It is also some of the committee members first look. So would you would you prefer to speak to that language, Mr. Kate, or would you rather speak generally to the university's response to COVID first? Well, I can go to the language. Obviously, all of our records are public record and thus I think I try to think about what people were or are looking for that we haven't had. You know, I, the president of the provost have spoken to a new mobile groups on campus in regard to as recently as just yesterday, I was describing in detail the information that appears on the sheet that had provided for they and provided earlier in September, the details where we spent the money we've gotten as far and what's been allocated because a faculty member yesterday was asking me if the headline they had read somewhere was true that the university had already received $80 million in COVID relief funding and I had to disavow or that and then I went through very carefully the 8.7 we got through FY 20 to 19 million received thus far and the fact that the legislature concerned currently considering 10. So we're always happy to do that. The bottom line of course is is every day the numbers are changing as we go forward. So I don't really see any problem providing that the only question would be the vehicle by which that occurs or and the timing, you know, is this for instance, a monthly report that the university produce the expectation because obviously we and then we move forward to the next month and that sort of thing. So that or you know, is on a quarterly basis. But I think it would be good to stipulate what it is we're required to do in that regard. Otherwise people will think well, that means every day you're going to give me your latest numbers. What about if it said a full specific quarterly accounting? I think I'd be perfect. Okay. So with that, are there are there other areas you'd like to hit in your testimony, Mr. Kate? I think you know, with our numbers that we've provided in the past, I've heard a discussion here about the break between revenue loss and then expenses. Obviously, we're restricted to some degree by the CARES Act requirements in terms of what you can spend CARES like money on. So we're trying to be very careful with that. But you know, right now, we're we're projecting a revenue loss just in net tuition over $20 million, we're probably down $7 million for the year on human board. So we're in that in that ballpark. And then, meanwhile, I won't describe, but we've detailed all the costs we have incurred in terms of refunds, technology enhancements for classrooms for online education, testing. We do a very rigorous testing program, of course, we're testing students with me. We tested them before they arrived. Our incidence rate, that's far off the net positive is 0.06%. Very, very low. We have taken over 200 students that can be icing depending on the need. We haven't needed to integrate many, but we took one entirely off one to that purpose. And we have a backup. So, you know, we've been doing all the things you put about from from the President's and I don't need to keep you long. It's just we were we were asked what what would it what would it take to help further fill the gap? And there's some populations came up with the $11 million house house. Can can I ask Mr. Kate? So this speaks back to Senator Hardy's point about the decision to bring students back. Can you just give us a sense from UVM's perspective? What what were the tradeoffs you considered when I'm sure you considered at some point a fully remote semester or year? What what were the tradeoffs when you made that decision? Considered very deeply very extensively. I think in the first instance, obviously, we thought long and hard about the health and wellness of the community, the state and the students, all of our faculty and staff, but what would be the best thing that on the other side was the whole matter of we are a higher education institution and most of our students in survey they wanted to come back and their parents and all of them. And so we wanted to try to address that desire. And then, you know, that then turns into the whole matter of becoming a weatherman, which is very quick, because if if UVM starts to look just like, and I'm not kind of pointing to anybody, but other institutions that are out there that are online only all the time, then students, especially our state students will be taking a very hard look at us in terms of the tuition they've had, because if they do not have the UVM experience on campus, it's very unlikely that a fair number of them just probably would not come, they might lose it. So we wanted to benefit the students, but we also wanted to ensure the viability of the institution. We've always said that we were going to pursue this based on the best recommendations of our health professionals, because this morning had a conversation with the president of the provost and I, others with two of our epidemiologists, of course, from UVM Medical Center, and all the faculty of the university. And this is a type of analysis we go through all the time. So it was it was a very deliberate action based on very good analysis of the options. We're prepared to pull back if we thought that the health and safety of people and students, faculty, staff, community. Thank you. Questions for Richard Kaye about UVM? Okay. Senator Hardy. I just want to put back a little bit on your your contention that, you know, one of the decision making things was that students and parents wanted to come back to campus. There are thousands of students around Vermont right now that would like to be in school full time, who would like to be able to go to kindergarten full time, who would like to be able to go to high school full time, and they're not able to because we are in a pandemic. And so I guess I would just push back on the entire higher education in our country. And this this idea that we needed to have students back in person, rather than remote education. I do laud the Vermont institutions for doing it better than anybody else in the country. But there was the option and there still is the option of remote higher education during a pandemic. And I find it incredibly frustrating to hear leaders of higher education institution saying, Well, that's what our students wanted. So we had to do it. That's what our student sort of K12 students want to and our and our K12 parents want to. And we don't have that option. And so it's a huge inequity in our very own state. So Mr. Kate, I would push back on that strongly. You did other options. And if you can't make the UVM experience an excellent one, regardless of the circumstances, then I think that's a shame. Absolutely. I don't think I said that we had to do it because they wanted to send a bluegrass to what we considered that was one of the things we considered. We do have an excellent online experience. But the people that are coming to the University of Vermont. But I understand that. Okay. All right. So, Susan, was that a I just want to speak. Yes. I just also want to mention that President Aconde has to leave in three minutes in case anybody has a question for him. I don't think we have any more questions. I will thank you for coming. I think we have a much clearer idea of the scale of the need. And also the reasoning behind a lot of what you've been doing. So I appreciate it very much. Please feel free to stay with us for committee discussion if you'd like. Also feel free to drop off because it is boring for people who aren't part of our small group. So thank you very much if you do drop off. Otherwise, we'll just go ahead knowing that you're listening. Susan. So yeah, I would just like to say a few words in closing that I hope you'll look closely at how we redrafted the language for this appropriation. Because I feel that it's important that, you know, that is included because it considers and outlines a sense of the equitable distribution. And also the fact that it is allowing the institutions to go where they need it the most and not be confined by a category where they may not have any expenses. So I think we really need to broaden the language or we're going to be doing a disservice if you agree to the appropriation to these and all the colleges. Yep. Speaking only for myself, I like that language better than what was in the house version, because it does some of the work rather than just leaving it to the agency of administration. So committee, we're we have about a half an hour. And I want to just clarify where we are. So again, outright Vermont, which was going to be part of our letter and the bridge funding for the state colleges. The Appropriations Committee considers themselves already decided to include those. So I think having our support in this letter for those is fine. But it is redundant in a way. So what we're really talking about is the language around UVM, which I was pleased to see Richard Kate supported with that one friendly amendment. So let's start there quickly. Is there is there anybody who didn't like that language around UVM transparency? Okay, anybody have a problem with making it quarterly? That report that would go up on our website, house website, appropriations, etc. Okay, so so we'll do that. Now to the question of the independent colleges and the house recommend of 10 million. So I will open it to whoever would like to speak to it. I'll reserve my own comments for a minute. But anybody want to speak to that question? Yeah, Andrew. I have a question first about I don't I don't know if I've seen the language the house language you talked about or have I seen it and I just it's it's in the house pass budget. I read it. But I can read it again. It's just the short. It's yeah, it's it's pretty short. So it's on page 96 of their house pass budget. But I'll read it to the frequency of administration. $10 million for equitable distribution. That's the phrase that appropriations was wondering about. Determining consultation with a Vic among the 11 independent colleges. Now Susan pointed out they have a new new formulation for that. And maybe it's better to just for us just to look at Susan Stitely's language. Do you have that in front of you, Andy? Yes. Because I I really don't like the house language for a couple of reasons. But we have a couple of questions. One is the number. And the other is, you know, how it's distributed, if it's distributed. So the house put in 10 million, which we heard testimony was, I would put it that it is a round number, but rounded down from a much higher need. So as with the 32 million for K 12 that the house put forward, they did it according to what they could afford. And so 10 million was the most the house felt they could afford of the ask. So let's just talk about that number for a minute. Where do people fall? I said that I support it. And I'll just rough out my reasons. So I feel that this federal funding, we're being asked to act as as a pass through but not not a duty free pass through, we're supposed to be making intelligent reason decisions about where it goes to, to reduce the loss that people have felt. Having thought a lot about Vermont state colleges and the bridge funding and their place as drivers of the economy. The number one thing for me is that we've seen three or four independent colleges go down. And we've tried to shore up our oversight of their finances. We haven't done a lot to help their finances. And I don't think we're going to do that anytime soon. This is an opportunity to try to stabilize these, call them job creating institutions in these communities with federal funds. It's not going to make them whole, but it is going to substantially reduce their losses. So I can very easily make an argument to myself for the 10 million. Ruth, I think is, and I don't want to speak for you, Ruth, but you seem like you were arguing for a reduced amount, or maybe no amount. Well, I, I'm just, it's hard for me to look at this just individual thing, because I, you know, think look wondering how much if we provided more funding for arts organizations, for example, I'm looking at actually the quote that Susan included in her in her testimony about the other areas that the our economists is suggesting we provide funding to and nonprofits or organizations and arts organizations, those were also some of my priorities. And, and I had been advocating for more funding for them. So I don't know if they got more money. So the 10 million just seems somewhat random to me. I guess I would agree with Senator Ash in that I'm wondering what how that was arrived at. I also would like it to not be able to go to covering expenses, but rather just revenue losses and specifically tuition revenue losses. Some of these colleges have other types of revenue. And I don't think we should be covering that. I'm Sophia is the only one still on here. And she would be a perfect person institution for for where I would like to target it a small revenue losses and that kind of thing. So I like the language that would direct it more and and really defining what equitable is the 10 million seems like a lot to me, frankly. Can can I ask because the federal thrust has been to cover expenses and not revenue loss. So I'm you've you've I don't think so with our business grants where they covered revenue loss. Well, like like, for instance, sales tax loss, we're not allowed to cover for the state. Oh, for the state. But I'm I was thinking about the business grants that we provided. Most of those cover revenue loss, not expenses. No, understood. But but what I what I mean is we've we've been making lots of decisions about expenses and reimbursing expenses. So I'm I'm this is the first time I've heard anybody really since the start of this talk about eliminating expenses as a category that we would reimburse. That's what we do in the business grants. But everywhere else, we've been talking about expenses and what you know, what can we reimburse you for K through 12. Oh, I see what you mean and K through 12. Yes, you're right. You're right. Debbie, it really depends on whether you look at it, you know, look at the more education or as business and they were making the argument that they're business businesses. But actually, I had a question for Senator Hardy, because you mentioned didn't you mention that a figure like $100,000 is that per per business is like is is that like the average of what our businesses are receiving? No, most of our most of the businesses in our state, the maximum they can get is $50,000, regardless of the size of business. So most of them are getting far less than that with the grants through ACCD or through the tax department. The maximum grant that I know of is actually for forestry businesses and those that grant program allowed for $100,000 in grants. So, you know, ABIC has made both arguments as did that with their businesses or their institutions of higher education. If you're looking at them just as businesses, then $10 million is way over funding them compared to what we are doing with other businesses in the state. So I was playing with numbers and thinking maybe we should do $250,000 might make sense. I don't know. But but to to Senator Bruce point, if you're looking at them as institutions of education institutions, then that's more kind of reimbursing expenses. However, you know, are these colleges had the option of of not bringing students back in person and doing remote education and not having all the expenses that they had. So that's where I'm caught up with the whole expenses thing. They had another option and they didn't take it for the most part. Some of them did like SIT and Vermont Law School and others and others reduced dramatically the number of students, but not all of them did. And so that's what I don't want to say is we're going to re we're going to reimburse all of your expenses for bringing back most of your students when they had another choice. Well, I what I was trying to get out with my question to Richard Kate is if they had made the decision not to bring back any students, take UVM, for instance, there's a there's a massive revenue loss involved with that. Because it's not tuition based, but you know, all of the things that you are not providing, you have to still run the dorms, you have to still, you know, maintain this whole infrastructure throughout remote teaching. Otherwise, you have to begin the process of winding down the physical plant, laying off the people that work there, etc. So the decision to go fully remote, it's it's not without its catastrophic financial consequences in certain instances, unless you're able to really, really go completely online, not lose a single dollar of tuition, and maybe dip into your endowment. Other other folks that we haven't heard from yet, I'd support the investment. The the House recommend. Yep. Okay. Andy. Yeah, it's hard for me. It seems like this is the job of the Appropriations Committee, when you have all the different things. If I knew what the money, if it wasn't 10 million, and it was 6 million, what the other 4 million was going to, then I would make it make it easier to decide. But just saying it should be less or should it be more, I don't feel like I have enough information to make that decision. I thinking of the being, you know, provincial about it, thinking of the colleges, small colleges, you know, in my district, you know, it's a huge thing for them. And supporting them is going to support the businesses that kind of rely on them being around. So I'm supportive in that regard. And I and I get Senator Hardy's point is well taken. I know it's kind of what you were just saying, Senator Baruth, is that their revenue loss would have been for a lot of these schools would have been greater had they not taken on the expenses of bringing them back. So that was something that they were trying to to walk a fine line with. So so I guess in the end, I'm basically supportive of it, because I don't have more information. But I would like, but I don't know, I don't have a good suggestion equitably. Even I likes the new Stitely language, we can call it is is better than the house language. But it's we're still putting a lot of trust into the agency of administration. So yeah, I just to and then I'll go to Jim to the, you know, we've if we were to recommend less, that would be our recommendation to approach. They could follow it or not follow it. They'd be in a negotiation with the house anyway. We don't know how strongly the house would support it. What we do know is that we won't get any say into where money would go if we recommended less than 10 million. So our our only value is just to determine whether we think it's it's a good use of the money. Jim? Well, in Rutland County, after losing two colleges, colleges, St. Joe's and Green Mountain College. And I think this is a good opportunity for us to help them with a little bit of it's a lot of money to us, but it's not a lot of money to the institutions. I'm good with the 10 million because that could easily go elsewhere. If we want to drop it five, the other five will disappear someplace else and it will good chances are it might not go to education. So I'd like to keep it in the 10 million and just as it is. And I'm really changing the language. Okay. I'd be good with that. But I'm I'm afraid that if we want to toy around with the amount, we're going to lose it. And who knows where it's going to go after that. It's going to be just disappear some place outside. I'd like to have a sure thing and knowing where the money's going to go and knowing that they're going to do a good job with the money. Okay, Senator Ingram. I think Senator Hardy makes really good points. And I mean, just looking at Susan Soutley's memo. I mean, if we think of them more in terms of other educational reimbursements for actual COVID related measures, there's a five point three million dollar figure in her chart on page three, which kind of makes a little more sense to me than the full 10. And I mean, yes, it'll be spent elsewhere, but there are a lot of needs. And I would be more comfortable with a lower amount also. Okay, I was not a math major, but I put it at four to in support of the House recommend. Have I misrepresented anybody's vote there? So what I'm what I'm thinking we'll do is I don't I don't want to go into great detail, but I'm thinking that what what I will do is add to our letter a line or maybe two lines that say we took testimony from AVIC explaining AVIC's explanation for how the 10 million was reached, offering Susan Stitely's new language and saying that that a majority of the committee supported the 10 million. Does that sound sound fair? Can I just ask a question, Phil? Sure. Which can you which Susan Stitely language are we talking about clear? So this is what she's got on that's page two. Yeah, the bottom of page two of her page to those legislative language. And that it does, Ruth, it does speak to endowment size, which you had mentioned. Senator Ash had pointed to CARES Act funding guidelines as something he was comfortable with. So it seems like this is moving very much in the direction that appropriations wanted. OK, so if that sounds all right, then what I will do is I'll I'll put all of these small changes into one file and I'll have Jeannie send it to appropriations as our committee recommendation. As far as Thursday goes, I was thinking about it this morning. I can't really think at the moment of any work we have to do Thursday. That's not to say we we can't have hearings next week. But is there anything anybody feels urgently needs doing Thursday? Because we've done we've done our budgetary consideration of the house actual language. We'll have drafted our funding memo. And as far as I know, you know, school is in the process of beginning. So I think it makes sense to wait until next week. If we want to do oversight, just general oversight testimony about the first week of which I think would make sense before we adjourn. So can I say I just want to make sure I understood from the beginning you were did the Appropriations Committee. Are they good with the stuff we sent them last week? Yes, they are. OK. In fact, they added, as I said, Senator Ash added the after school task force language that we passed back in February. So. Yeah. So and if you remember, there was an amendment on the floor to remove the reference to tax and regulate from it. Yes. So that's the language that will go forward with no mention of tax and regulate. But as I said, the Conference Committee on S 54, the tax and regulate bill the governor has insisted on and the house has insisted on a direct permanent funding source for after school that comes out of tax and regulate something could still blow up on that bill. You know, it's it's not at the finish line yet. It's close and then it has to pass both bodies and get signed. But if so, that task force would be created in the budget and then it would have six months from signing to produce the plan for spending the money and the money won't start coming in for a year and a half or two years. So the timing should work out pretty well still. Yeah, Andy. Can I just ask for an update? What happened with the house language about the school deferred maintenance? I thought at one point we did they put that in their budget? They just I just dropped off. So they sent it from their committee to I want to say ways and means or appropriations. I think it was ways and means never moved. There was you remember a memo came out about must pass bills that the speaker and the pro tem agreed on and we only had one what's that? I never saw it. I just heard it. It was not very illuminating and it turns out not to actually reflect what the house is prepared to do. So we had one bill on there, which was the health care bargaining language, which they agreed was must pass and then said they weren't going to pass it. So that's that's where that stands. But at the very bottom of that, there was a kind of a miscellaneous list that said something like to be decided or whatever. And that bill about school construction consultant was there. And then it said question mark in the budget. What I have said at this point to appropriations on the pro tem is that I think that should go through the regular process. That was like a million and a half for a consultant. That's frankly, that's the sort of thing that the house sometimes tries to drop in right at the end, like a three hundred thousand, five hundred thousand, one and a half million dollar appropriation almost always for consultants to do work in the off season. And I let representative Webb know earlier on if she wanted that bill to move, she should send it to us in the in the normal course of things. So I would not personally say yes to that going in the budget because it's it's too much outside the the publicly illuminated process. So thanks for today, everybody. We're we're done a little early, like I say, unless some major thing pops up, we won't meet Thursday. I'll I'll leave the Zoom invitation in your boxes. But we all understand right now we're not going to use it. But if tomorrow Jane Kitchell handed me something and said your committee has to look at this, I might send you an email and say we're going to need to meet Thursday. But for right now now. OK, see you soon.