 Apparently, Ruth is in institutions and Cory is headed to the chair and is quoted as sick, so... Oh my God! So Friday is sick. Friday is sick. Yeah, that's right. So, we will be running with Slim committee today. That's right. We'll be catching most of them. Jim, you want to join us? Yeah, sure. We'll start with you. I want to start with the state life of healthcare if we can. Okay. The state is being made for that to begin and be helpful for us. Okay. I've sent him an email. So, let's see. I mean, we could start with your new draft of the state board event. Yeah. The reason I think it would be helpful for that other piece is because we're talking about covering employees that part. Yeah, yeah. I wish we could run that to get that right. Obviously, there are concerns about that, so we have to have another room for that piece. Okay. Just wondering, is he on his way, JD? I haven't heard back from him. Well, let's start with Fallon. Okay. And so, this is... 1.66. Yeah. draft 2.1. Actually, it's 2.26. No, 2.26. This is sdc6. draft 2.1. 2.1. So, we're running a different one than we've got there. Okay. So, I will say that I have spoken in the interim also with any... That's our document here. That's it. Now, this is our document. We're on sd2.6. 2.26. Not bad. Sd2.6. Oh, okay. I just shifted you. Yes. So, I did speak with the NEA. They also were not behind the change to unionized employee. Yeah. They just felt it created too many unnecessary alterations in my statute. So, I guess what we're looking for is a way to keep the current nomenclature, but fix the problem that both sides have agreed upon. Yeah. I think talking to Damien about this, the reason we work with the way it is here is we put in another definition of these other employees that they're concerned about. For me, at least, I had to like graph up the whole thing. It was just so complicated to graph all of these things work together. And I thought there has to be support in doing this. So, my goal was to make it simple and understandable. The issue with unionized kind of standard is that the term unionized picks up maybe two narrow categories of employees in the sense that there are employees who haven't I think joined the union. The unionist will represent. So, for defining terms purposes, for the change that's like represented employees, we could work around that term, these different terms. I think it's more friendly. I know there's concern about how you express which employees are covered. And the philosophy of this draft was to say the definition of unionized employee or how do you find that? So, for some of you, are the people who are being represented by the union representatives like me. The term persisting employees includes those unionized employees, both everybody else who works in the school, who are actually participating in that. And therefore, we thought we picked up the confidentiality of those other categories because they would be participating in employees. But couldn't we do that with the old nomenclature and just change the definition? We could. And that's where I started. And I got very hung up on it. It seemed so confusing to me. I tried to find a simpler approach. So, we're going to have to revisit that, obviously, if I'm going to gain the speaker because you can probably explain just very well how I'm doing it right now. Okay. Maybe, Jeff, could you or Paula speak to your concerns about that piece? Sure. Jeff and I have a record. So, we, I spoke with Damien at Bumpton home getting Valentine's cards the other day. And I said, I asked him about that term unionized employee kind of thing. And he said, there's no, that he and you weren't wed to it. It was just sort of the term he came up with. So, I played around a bit with it. Yeah. And I'm thinking that perhaps the better way to go is go back to the original language. Participating employee means a school employee and an ad who is covered by a collective art agreement or any other school employee. That's a participating employee and they get their health insurance through it. And go back to school employee in the definition part. An individual employed by an SU or a school district as a teacher or administrator has defined by 1981 as the title. A municipal school employee is defined by 21 VSA 1722. And then add confidential employee as it's defined in title 21. Individuals employees and supervisors. Because I was the concern that VSBA had and we share. Yeah. The gap was perhaps supervisors were not covered by the law. And I think everybody agreed that they shouldn't be. So, we just thought to go back to the municipal law and cover them that way. Just define, just spell it out. And I've got the language. I afforded the genie. And I'm happy to talk to you today. But I think that's a better way to go and take out the word unionized route. The document that was for. Yeah. Because it just becomes clunky and if you're not a unionized employee, does this cover me? It does. That's what I'm saying. So, what I can point out with you on this is the school employee or the unionized employee number of client. Those are the ones that you actually represent. In this context, we represent all employees essentially. Whether they're in the union or not. Okay. Correct. And so, the issue that the BSBA raised was about supervisors who are not covered by the municipal law. They are not defined as employees of the municipal law. And it was kind of, oh, that's right. They are not employees under the municipal labor law, which we were back 11 in First Hill. So, perhaps there's a gap there. And this would be the gap filling by including them as defining them as school employee. Okay. During that one. This is what I thought was that you represented employees which are unionized employees. Probably a kind of bargain agreement basically. And so, we have a definition of that because we're talking about your representation in this statute. And then we have another definition of just being inclusive of everybody else. So, what I thought was when the supervisor wouldn't be, I think the superintendent wouldn't be part of a collective bargaining. So, that's why I was trying to divide this between two categories. Those you represent. And those who are covered to you because they work in school, but you don't work in that. But they don't get the same benefit. Right. I understand what you're trying to do. I'm not quarreling with the outcome. I was concerned about unintended consequences of calling them unionized employees. And somebody then thinking they're not. And does that mean I'm not covered and going back and forth on that, instead of just defining all school employees as all employees, including confidential employees, supervisors. And that was the issue that BSBA raised. And I share it. I agree. Okay. So, your view is you cover up the overview of the name of all school employees. Look, in fact, Act 11 says that. Okay. Now, actually, we even need the definition of participation employees. Because we had two conventions for a reason. And if the decision goes away, I think it's the overview of everybody. Well, now, I think the issue of participating in the employee is somebody who actually takes health insurance. Not all people will take health insurance. They may have a better deal from their spouse or something so. Okay. And in general, I think what we're trying to do is make as few changes to Act 11 as possible. So this one, it doesn't surprise me that both sides have a reaction to this because it's a far-fung series of changes through Act 11. And that in and of itself, as well as changing the name to unionized, which may cause on one side of the equation some reaction. Yeah. So I, school boards, is there somebody here that you can speak for school boards? Okay. Then we will let this draft. There's a new language here. Do you want to say a language that's helpful? I think it's five. Sure. Let's do that. So the language is on page five, four to 17 is the alternate members language. And basically I've stripped out all the language earlier of alternate members for all of them this year. And these four alternate members may be appointed to the commission who if appointed should be entitled to attend all the negotiating sections of the commission. One alternate member may be appointed by the labor organization representing the greatest number of employees in the state, by the labor organization, the second greatest number. And after two alternate members may be appointed by the organization representing the majority of public schools. Jim. Yeah. I would like to simplify that because now it, again, it becomes a little more specific than I had in mind. I had been thinking that the commissioners for one side would appoint and the commissioners for the other side would appoint if they wanted to, not specifying within the commission who is appointed. See what I mean? So in other words, the five members who are representing the labor organizations can appoint up to two. So those five can appoint up to two. As opposed to specifying within the five an additional level. Does that make sense? Yeah. And then the same would be true on the other side. The school boards can appoint up to two. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Keep it going. In terms of each alternate member, they're appointed for six years. In the event of a vacancy, they appoint an authority at the alternate member who should become a vacant, she'll appoint an assessor. Just to wrap it up, they're made out of an alternate member's term. They're going to be removed only for cause by the commission. Okay. I just want to stop there. In the letter that we got from Joe McNeil and Neil O'Dell. Number two, it says, these states that members of the commission may be removed only for cause. And that the commission shall adopt rules blah, blah, blah to define the process for removal. So the commission members are appointed for six year terms. It's important for the appointing bodies to have the ability to remove a member who is not meeting expectations. You've got that right. So that's maybe removed by the commission only for cause. Maybe removed by the alternate members, appoint an authority to that process. Got it. Same rules for members as well. And maybe removed by the alternate members of the ruling authority. That's confusing. What does that mean, Joe? The alternate members. So if they exclude more than once, they get two people to remove. Right. It's the, the apostrophe is important. No, it's right. By the alternate members appointing authority. Right. That's important. If it didn't happen, then it wouldn't. Oh, sorry. I'm saying it's key, key apostrophe. Wait a minute. Alternate members may be removed only for cause. By the commission only for cause. And maybe removed by the alternate members. Appointing authority without cause. So meeting by the commission writ large, both sides. Appointing authority, which is the school boards, the school board can remove its own members and alternate members. Right. And the labor organizations can remove their own members, alternate members without cause. I don't know why I'm not getting this. So the alternate members appointing authority is the, the five members of the commission that appointed that alternate member. So above may be removed by the commission. That's all 10 members. Yeah. Okay. So, so the commission as a whole needs cause, but the people who appointed them do not. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I couldn't worry if it's out here, but. It's, it's a little bit of a mouthful, but. Was that? It's fine. Okay. So other thoughts about that. Was it, was the underlying statute. We're dealing with the two different unions. No on that. But on this other part about the, what Jim tried to write it above. There is a split in terms of the commission. It's four and one. Okay. And that's part of the problem here. Right. Is that here becomes one. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. So I couldn't remember if that was spelled out. In other words, we would preserve the four to one empowerment by changing the wording as I suggested. Okay. Other changes in this draft, Jim? Um, no, that's all. Okay. I had a question. Yeah. Okay. Number three. My name. Bring your responsibilities to sandwiches for each. I'm tiered. She'll be the same problem with this. They were employees. Does that mean the same fee for every employee or is that done by wage? So you have higher, higher wages, much higher for a lot of folks and a lot less for, yeah, a good percentage. I just want to make sure that it wasn't the same fee for all employees. Look on page five. 20. The percentage of the payment. The individual to person. Her child. The coverage of their health. Yeah. Percentage of your style. Yeah. That's the leading into that language. What's up with tears? I'm here. It's interesting. Plants here isn't always a fine. So there's this, you know, of course it'll be a percentage of premium. Yeah. But as you turn over here, then I don't see where it would be on. Highest wage earners versus some of the least wage earners. So the higher wage earners, I'm thinking would pay. Yeah. More than that. Yeah. We didn't really decide that as a committee. I mean, that's what the ending with life. What you're saying. Make it different. Be sorry. The language is not here. It's not. Yeah. It's all here. And we will, before we're done with this discussion, we'll be taking a last ask from both sides. Things that we're not agreed upon. This I thought was agreed upon reading Joe McNeil's letter he seems to feel that a number of points were not agreed upon. I wish they were here to enlighten us a little bit more. Well, let's just take another piece. So Jim, if you go to their letter, everybody can look at Joe McNeil's letter, February 14th. Under 2B, F states that commission members shall be entitled to receive per diem compensation. This entitlement is not funded by the legislature. If the legislature is not going to fund this entitlement, it should be removed. Is that in here or is that in there? Okay. Where is that? It's in F. So that is toward 2B, which is on page 4, 5, 7. Well, the money is supposed to come from the appropriations process, but it hasn't thus far. So does the bill need to be perfected? I'm kind of reluctant to strike it. You know what I mean? It went through the process. It was something that the Appropriations Committee agreed to fund, but that just happened. So... And did we ever find out if they were going to in the budget adjustment? Well, budget adjustment is basically gone now. Right, but did it include... No, I don't think it did. It didn't include per diem the budget adjustment. Why don't we, instead of striking this, why don't we put an appropriations section on this bill purposefully to lodge it there, and I wonder what the estimate would be for the process. Do you happen to know anybody off the top of your head what the... I remember Nicole Mace calling with a request. I want to say it was like $5,000. I think there were six... I think there were six official meetings of the commission. That's right. Yeah. Prior to the beginning of the fact-finding and mediation arbitration process, and then probably another four... So, let's say a total of roughly ten meetings. But a number of people were compensated. And not everybody showed up. And so, man, us has any guesses to the total cost? I don't know if it's five-cented about right or six. Well, let's put... And the question would be... I don't think at this point we want to try to get retroactive to cover the last cycle. But we could try to make sure that it's covered in the coming cycle. But that won't be for this year's budget. Let's hold off on that question. Okay. By the way, he commented on drop 1.1. Yes. 2.1. So, some of his comments... Actually, there's another version between these two that we might want to do. So, he's coming out of the version here. So, something to pick up, I believe. Are there other things you see in this memo, Jim, that we haven't touched on? Yes. Let's see. How do employees talk about 2A, room for cause. We've got that. We've got that, right? We've got that there. Do we alternate? There's an alternate in there. He's got two alternatives here. One, they should not be permitted unless what part is agreed. We haven't done that with the other one. I think it's silly to make them an object of negotiation. There's nothing wrong with having an alternate or two. So, unless they make a more persuasive argument about why they're not allowing an alternate, because it's fair to both sides. Each side could use alternates. So, we're going to talk about that. So, let's go ahead and put it there. All that stuff will go about. Number two on page two, at least time, as far as it's not clear this language, but it did, but... Now, where is that, Jim? He said that number three is four by ten through thirteen. Made whole. Am I remembering that right? School board argument was that if they gave an employee time off, they had to cover the sub. Right, they were concerned about the sub. And so then you develop a thousand dollars or two thousand dollars of uncovered expense. What would you guys think about splitting that cost as other costs are split? So, in other words, you're splitting the arbitrator and you're splitting... So, this would say they have to let them off, but it would also allow them to recover half of what they paid to cover that time. I think we're going to have to... Yeah, I think we're going to think about that one. Think about it. It's a small amount of money, but it would otherwise be a unilateral small amount that they're eating. President, if it's so small, it's more worth administrating this transfer. And right now, I think four to five got it anyway. Yeah, I think more of the question is, are they granted the time? That was the issue for us, was actually allowing the time. Most of the folks had time, a couple days or whatever, and they were taking it. It was about getting the time, granting them the time. One person who had took some doing to get the person to actually be able to attend a meeting. Yeah, and it's inherently unfair to have one side have veto power in effect over your selections because they won't get the time. So, let's leave that in the bill. We'll leave an open question as regards to the replacement time. Okay. And then the other one, that's about number three here. We're fine with that language. They just don't want you to use it. And then he's referring to number four. The language now is on page 11. Line nine to 11. The department said the operator explained a couple of things about the rationale. We're just going to include observations on the cost estimates for all of the parties. Can you say they did not agree with that language? No. Where are you again, Jim? In the bill on page 11. Yeah. Line nine through 11. Oh, right. Right. So that last clause, which may include observations on the cost estimates provided by the parties, that was an attempt on my part in one of their general concerns, which is that they wanted the arbitrator to be aware in as much as they were aware about the welfare of employees to also be aware about cost estimates. But they are saying they did not agree to that language. It's a little unclear. Do they mean only the final clause or the entire sentence? Because they did want appropriate detail of our rationale. Now they say appropriate detail is made. It's not helpful. Okay. What would they have preferred? Okay, let's remove that language then. I don't think NEA wants that language. The wish may include observations. Yeah, which language? They're saying they don't want any of that underlying language. And I thought it was their gripe, more than yours, that the arbitrator didn't provide. The brief decision that we were unhappy with and perhaps ununderstandably so, we don't like the second clause starting with which, and they don't either, so I think that's fair enough that comes out. The question is whether you keep the first clause in. All right, let's keep the first clause. We weren't looking for it. They were, I don't know. And we're comfortable with that first clause. Okay, let's get rid of the last clause. Okay. I don't really understand their beef with that sentence. They'll be back tomorrow wanting it back in. What's that? They'll be back tomorrow wanting it back in. We won't be here though. Okay. So Jim, the major work on this, I think is unwriting the unionized piece and then putting in place something more like a Jefferson power. Okay, and then they also say here that they don't want to add anything until they feel like they agree to this draft. So we won't worry about anything else from them until we see a rewrite of your draft. Okay. Okay, so let's go to AOE and State Board. So this is the multicolored draft. Oh, you're back. Okay. So this document here is going to use the Secretary of Friends, the provider side by side, but his side by side only addresses three sections of the use bill. Okay. So he says in the beginning, he says, he says, his side by side addresses the substantive duties of the agency and the State Board described in sections one, two, and 16, but does not address the conforming changes subsequent to three sections. Changes in sections one, two, and four, 16, we resolve into substantial differences where the conforming changes is currently drafted. Yeah. He says it's an email with an attachment. You might have done this. Oh, maybe not. What do you refer to? That's Jim's. We got an email from French. Oh, yeah. We got a side by side. He passed it out when he was moving out. Yeah. Well, the email said, this is his testimony that he referred to that he did hand out. So it's the email. Right? Yeah, I went to open it. I couldn't open it. So I wondered. Let's not worry about it. When I saw it, it was not as appropriate in your list document. Yeah, I thought the two things he gave us were what we wanted, which were his take on the language, especially the header language of the bill, and then his new duty split, that he suggested. Okay, so show us what's here. All right. So what's here in blue? So what's here with the bill as it was drafted before? So this is a section to comment on. And what's in blue are the changes you would recommend. So begin on the C.S. Board, line 18 says the C.S. Board shall if he wants to keep in, engage local group board members in a bar education community. And then goes on. And then we want to add, consistent with the provisions of this trial, Jim, quick question. The strike through here, that strike through indicates that's a strike through in the bill as we were looking at before. So I'm just trying to get a read. So yellow is... Yellow is Italian blue or C.S. Board. So we always know what C.S. Board is throughout that case document. Okay. Blue is comment. Yeah. And then the strike through is stuff in the existing draft. Non-Carol draft. Not in the statute just in the bill. So strike through is chemical. Yeah. Blue is... There'll be strike through blue, too. Because sometimes you strike it through. Yeah. What Carol wanted. So you're going to see that. God. That's the first change. So they... I'm just trying to take that section one as an example. So they agree other than getting rid of and gubernatorial? Yeah. You're welcome. On this page. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're going to go over to page three. Please change here. This is where the C.S. Board would adopt the rules. So he wants to say C.S. Board has the power to adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 25 as necessary for the implementation of powers given to the Board under this section and under sections 166, 175, 377, 261. So basically this is where he's trying to narrow down the rulemaking of the C.S. Board. He's taking in all the details of what the C.S. Board has authority over rulemaking. All that things out. So basically the general statement here I suppose is a specific list of rulemaking authority. So that on page four. Yeah. Both of them are recommending striking. No. Sorry. No. This is the music. Sorry. The language that was here before struck was with John Carroll. John Carroll wanted to add all of these other whole list of rules in. Yeah. And since the professor is saying no, make it more abstract, more general and take all of these list of rules. And then page four, line 12, that section, that was suggested by John Carroll that French is saying we should. That's right. Yeah. So two. So lines one through eight. John Carroll would have been on page four and John Carroll would have been on page four. And did oh for the block below? Yeah. And then, yeah. So review and comment on. Let's get that changed. And then 12 through 20, that would be there and John Carroll strapped. It would be taken out and set by John Carroll strapped. Okay. Let's keep going. Okay. And then he would take out and John Carroll would have on page five, lines one and two, John Carroll would have that. He would have to request to take that out. Then up to page seven. On my 14th or 13th Chair Carroll would say the Secretary of Shell implement rules adopted by the State Board and illegal exercises of the powers in Shell and Secretary French would just say Secretary of Shell. Take out the language that's been struck in the loop. Then on my 20th, the Secretary's powers now were in Secretary's powers to adopt rules pursuant to type 25 that's considered appropriate. The excuse of the Secretary's duties and that's directed by John Carroll. So he would put that in. Small changes in line eight on page eight. The in comment. And then lines 11 and 12 Chair Carroll would keep in and the Secretary would take it out. But this is kind of a fundamental thing here because the way that Chair Carroll thought about this was even if the State Board implements rules in some areas they will never implement them. They'll never have to administer it. So here on 11 and 12 this Board said that the Secretary has to approve the status of infant schools as approved in infant schools. That's an implementation thing. So the rules would be drafted by the Secretary whether the State Board would approve the approval part. The Secretary said no. We want that to be over the State Board so we can do the execution of the part. And in the side by side the Secretary said we'll also support the State Board in doing that. We'll prepare the documents for them. Then on page 10 line six through nine would be added by the Secretary to the Secretary who would be responsible for the educational literacy. I have that in a different spot in statute so it's going to be different actually than the current draft that you've been working on. It's been moved to this section here. And then actually where it's been moved to take it out is on page 10 line 18. So that same language about this is going to be moved from section 41 into section 19 of Secretary's duties above. And then another change is on page 12 we're talking about section 1 here and this is where you allocate the rules between the two rules. And so this is where the list by Chair Carroll has been paired down by Secretary French so everything in blue that's been struck from Chair Carroll walks in and Secretary French walks out. Right. Okay. Well, I mean one way to look at it is that this is a relatively short ask in terms of what the Secretary is. I mean it's a comprehensive ask because he's seeking to acquire much more okay than him. But he's doing it in a very efficient way at least. Well, this is only a partial way because he's got this conformance. Everything else has to do with it. No, understood. But I mean you know I guess I'm seeing the glasses half fully. Yeah. I was saying this the other day. I mean if we compare the list that Secretary French prepared to not to each other but to what exists now. I mean it's a huge momentous hearing down and whereas I think the State Board is a little it's not comprehensive and I see some internal logic. The logic that's used but yeah I just think it's over to me. Thanks. Thank you. This is what it was in the email. It goes through this. Okay, so he's got so this is his rationale for which of the rule series he's left where they are. Okay, I think it's probably a good probably a good time for me maybe offline to go back to both Chair Carroll and Secretary French see if I can narrow the differences between them a little more and then if we could at the same time if I could tease out which of these changes they could agree on maybe I can produce a better draft with Jim in the same way that we're going to do with statewide healthcare bargaining basically get us to a draft where we can make some committee decisions and hope that they don't then oppose the bill because we've gone off their idealized ask anybody have thoughts or questions for Jim on this bill? Okay, well thanks for that Jim. Sure, yeah. And let's see. So what we remember to do on the miscellaneous bill that we haven't done is we were asked to get a physical note on the feminine hygiene product piece of it. Oh yeah. Can you initiate that for us Jim? Or should I do that? Probably you should because many things are coming from. Yeah. Yes. Could you contact JFO and send them the part of the miscellaneous bill I believe it's the last page. That is I've got new language for you if you want to review it. Yeah. Page 8. Page 8 of the current draft. Page 8 and I again. Page 8 and 9. Send them to that language so we need a physical note if this was made mandatory in middle schools and high schools. What would be the estimated impact in the bill 6.5 to 12. Well that's a decision we haven't made yet. The original bill was high schools. I think the committee has very much agreed on middle schools. I don't know it gets more complicated. What's that? Is there a definition for middle school? High school is the 7 through 12. High school is the middle school definition. There is no definition. There are 7 through 12, it's high school. I mean we could say 6 through 12. If it's 6 through 12 then you're basically including all the elementary schools that go through K through 6 for all of that. Well you might as well do 5th because that is actually more appropriate in terms of what girls like. I don't know how many middle schools there are. I think in middle school, just because that's the way I did it, 5th, 6th, 7th, 6th, 7th, 8th. Yeah. Didn't we hear testimony for 5th graders? Yeah. We can't delineate the 5th graders from the whole elementary school because they're all sharing a bathroom. Alright. Which is fine. Yeah, I guess I was looking for a bright... I mean, high school is easy enough but it leaves out obviously a spot of young women who need the product. So there's no definition of middle school? No, the definition in Vermont high school is 7 through 12. Definition of elementary school is K through 6. Oh. There are middle schools, I'm sure, in the state covering those low grades but it's a stature definition of middle school. Yeah. I don't know what you're thinking about since licensing. So you can get a middle school endorsement to teach middle school grades and that's where the goal is your 5th to 8th in Vermont but there's really only two... There's secondary schools which includes 7 through 12 in terms of that. So we don't really have middle schools? We do and we call them middle schools and we have a lot of middle school instruction but in terms of how the state breaks them down for physical purposes, elementary, and secondary. But they do exist when they're just standing alone building? Absolutely, yeah. So we could say high schools and 7 through 12 are covered. I forgot about it. Let's take a look. I have to explain the last discussion which is... Is this... It's draft 2.2 Yeah, that's pretty good. S224. How do you change that? 3.3. 3.4. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I may want to talk to you. So you got 3.2. That's fine. You got 3.3. Oh, is it where they both put them? Yeah. So the letter is on page 8 and it now reads there's a finding which by enacting the statute of death page 8 So by enacting the statute there's no intention to ensure that female students from the public school or in the schools in the Penn School has access to menstrual hygiene products at no cost and without the embarrassment of having to have breast cancer. That being that it reads a school district and an approved in Penn School to make menstrual hygiene products available at no cost and a majority of gender neutral bathrooms and bathrooms designed with designated females in each school within the district or under the jurisdiction of the Board of the Independent School that enrolls females in any of grades 5 through 12. The school districts in consultation with the school nurse provide services to the school by the term of which are the gender neutral bathrooms and bathrooms designed for females to stop menstrual hygiene products in which grants they use. School districts in approved in Penn School should bear the cost as applying menstrual hygiene products and they see grants that are partnered with non-profit or community-based organizations to support the top grade. That looks good. It's by specifying grades 5 through 12 I think we set up a definitional problem that's then solved by letting the school nurse decide which bathrooms so for instance, my kids went to a 1 through 5 school. As I remember it, there were only 5 bathrooms that the 5th graders were using and so as I read this they could stock a majority of the bathrooms so they'd still have to stock so if it's a grade 1 through 5 school under this they would still have to stock a majority of the bathrooms even though only one grade is covered by this. It's very weird if there's any way to finesse that a little more so that I think in general it's good for now we might add a little more nuance. Are there other changes? The first section of the bill shows with the 5th grade section 1 which is the publishing of the secondary schools we changed over from the State Board to Secretary I don't know the place where the State Board is talking about State Board rules the State Board still has authority to adopt rules under both John Carroll's and Secretary French's youth and that's on page 6 page 4 page 3 then school of elders that's the language that's here we on page 6 on page 8 on the 4th August 31st the agency of education and collaboration with the advisory council created a group of statutes to develop and distribute to school districts and model the school violence policy and so being in compliance with all relevant state and federal laws including federal child nutrition and we have the position act 2004 and the federal healthy hunger free kids act of 2010 and represent best practices and guidance from these senators for disease control and prevention of the whole school whole community whole child model which is designed to achieve a score of at least 8% on the wellness school assessment sponsored by the University of Connecticut the agency shall establish and maintain online a publicly available database of every local education agency that's most recently the wellness policy and try out so this is the most recent update that people at the heart association were seeking so it's changed in a couple of ways just pointing to different more specific theoretically better wellness policies okay is that it Jim? just saying that the menstrual hygiene requirements kick in for the 21-22 school year okay so committee we have lost corn not ideally although I think although Jim said he could give us a doctor appointment right so we're probably at the end of what we have for these three bills now we have to generate new drafts so anything else that we should talk about or that we need to bring up? can I put some on the distant radar? absolutely this is teacher licensure for day care centers or child care centers and it's part of that which I'm still trying to figure out the confusion between what is regulated by AOE and what is regulated by Department of Children Families so the child care centers are regulated by Department of Children Families licensure requirement is done by AOE under board rules for licensure I think that's the way it works but the licensure requirement which is a good thing is difficult to meet for a lot of the child care centers so I'm hearing from child care centers in my district like that is one of the toughest ones to me and the cost and the effort for somebody who's been doing day care for 20 years now to go through the process and the ones that have gone through the process are not really impressed by it they're not feeling like while this is a good use of my time but so one of the things that they're asking for is can we do other ways, kind of flexible pathways for licensure so if you are a Montessori teacher and have been for 20 years and have a Montessori because not a license but a certificate, can you use that to present to AOE to say this, I've gone through this process, look at what Montessori requires can I use that to this requirement for child care so the house is working on a pre-K in the room I can tell you about where that stands they have talked about it, I heard talking about it but not yeah, so a couple things one is they had a provision in one of the drafts that would allow the certified teacher to be a Montessori certified teacher for five or six is it that out? because they realize there's Waldorf and there's all the standard oh, before it was specifically mentioned Montessori so that's been taken out of the draft but I'm going to have conversations happening this isn't the thing we're doing, it's bringing a study to you all of the direction that goes is to require private centers to provide direct instruction to students right now it can be direct instruction or basically oversight or coaching or whatever and the view from house education is education they should have a certified teacher if we want to close more day and therefore because of that concern they have another section in the bill that would create a task force so we could have a pipeline a teacher first look at the pipeline then think about it and that's the conversation they're having too much way to go having a requirement that would face them for three years with a study or with a study first and do a requirement so I'm exactly with that too with a specific organization or pedagogies that would just be have whoever writes the rules I guess that would be the board find a way to work with these entities and basically do a flexible pathways way to get to your licensure if you've been teaching for 20 years if you have these certificates with these other programs we can look at the program and say this is a legitimate rigorous program we'll accept this one but we won't accept that one it's an online from Bermuda program we're not going to accept that one we actually do that in the United Church of Christ here in Vermont we do that because we have some small world churches and it's very difficult to find pastors who go through the traditional ordination but there's a way to go through where you get a more practical experience because we need 2,500 more licensed child care we will have our chance so I'm just putting it out there something that I'm going to try to work on absolutely and I'm certainly open to it I will say that every time we've picked up licensure in any way it gets really cutthroat between the agencies and you know private providers potentially all that gets very territorial and there's government operations right exactly just be pathologists alright yeah well that'll be a good lesson for me okay so I think that's all we have for today and then next week Debbie's running the committee Thursday and Friday yes so Thursday we're going to be doing the structured literacy and then Friday will be Ruth's start time bill and Cory's athletes she'll bring in some famous delivery yeah I like that you know her mom's what'd you say we've got that um golfer, that woman golfer are you bringing her in are you bringing me okay well thank you I'm going to try to give John Carroll the call and I'm going to try to work on that the 2 lists