 Welcome everyone to Senate Education, Wednesday, April 26th. A few things on the agenda. We're gonna start with Senator Chittenden who's gonna propose an idea to the committee and amendment to the budget. We're then going to return to the question of PCB testing in schools with a Dr. Kerry Hornbuckle. And then we will return to age 461, our discussion on bullying, harassment, and public school admissions, which is really connected to 483. And then 494, an act relating to making appropriations. This is actually some follows up on Senator Chittenden's language that we're gonna hear on now, hear about now. Just generally, I did expect the floor to go much longer than it did. And, but since we got off, I appreciate Senator Chittenden joining us. Thank you for this. Senator Chittenden, great to see you. And do you have copies of your amendment? Oh, we have them, in our folder, thank you. So we are looking, Senator Chittenden is putting forward language, let me see. It says Senator's ABCDE moved that the report on the committee of appropriations. Okay, so please tell us what you're thinking, tell us why you decided to choose to do it, Senator, and tell us a few things that you'd like to see happen. Well, I'll give you some background. I just want to realize that I've been to this committee a few times now, and whenever I get invited to a house committee, I always, the first time I show up with donuts, and it's always resulted in better results. So, you know, the next time I come down to Senate education, I'm bringing donuts, okay? I owe you all donuts. Senator Mazza sent us a bag of catered meals on your behalf, so, yeah. So I think the reason why I'm here is a couple of, I have a constituent who is also a very knowledgeable person that works in this field, and he's also associated with the National Association of Energy Services Companies. He's contacted me over the years through a variety of different hats that I've worn around school. So, many of you recall that back in 2020, the city of South Burlington, the school district of South Burlington proposed to do a massive reconstruction, a completely new build of high school and middle school. It was a $217 million project, and it was not approved by the voters. The point is in those conversations and the resulting conversations, individuals like this gentleman have made very eloquent arguments, or not arguments, but statements, that it's important to have people around the table that understand how to retrofit and energy-improve existing infrastructures, because there are a lot of things that can be done. So, what his organization, while his company and affiliated organization focuses on is performance energy improvements to municipal facilities. So, he reached out to me last Thursday, we had a phone call, I believe, because I did previously serve on this illustrious committee. And so, that, and he's spoken to me about it before. He looked at you when he said, and I can't mention him, yeah, please continue. And he had the conversation, he heard about the working group task force on the school construction aid, which, by the way, fully support all of your efforts. I think that is the right direction to go in. And as he was looking at the composition of that, as well as other individuals he knows in other states, he just saw an opportunity to at least consider an additional member or somebody on that working group that would also represent an organization that does have some expertise in performance-based contracting. Some arguments with his proposal that I was inspired to do so from friends in the building. After hearing from Eric Lafayette, they caught me on the yesterday morning and just said, hey, this seems to make sense. And I don't think, I don't know if your committee considered adding that member to this body, but if you look at the 15-member composition, this amendment proposes to add an appointment by the governor. But to me, really, I would love for this, I think it makes the most sense if you all support this to bring it forward. Happy to do so if you prefer, but I am not bringing this forward unless the Committee of Jurisdiction supports it. It's a lesson I've learned earlier this session. I'm trying to be funny there, all right. So, if you all do support this and would like me to do the legwork, I'd be happy to, alternatively, what this would propose to do as I got feedback from Senator Kitchell because it is the budget bill that this would be proposed to amend too. She suggested, A, come talk to this committee, and B, she also said, you know, if you add another member that go to 16 from 15, it gets a little unwieldy. In that conversation, she also posited, but again, I'd look to you all as your reaction, but if we just reduce the number of House representatives from two to one and Senators from two to one, so we'd have one from each chamber, and then that would bring it down to 13, and then if you added this one, go to 14, and then there's been other conversations as well about other compositions. Who's around the table matters? And I think it would be really important for this group to have a perspective that knows what it takes to retrofit and create energy efficiencies while addressing HVAC system upgrades so that the body doesn't necessarily default to complete rebuilds, because complete rebuilds, as much as they might make sense in certain circumstances, I think there is value to have different expert perspectives at the table to weigh the pros and cons from using an existing infrastructure and modernizing it, making the old new, which I've seen creatively done in a lot of different places, the old McDonald's in downtown Burlington, and the farmhouse group, you can tell it's the old McDonald's. What's there now? The farmhouse. Right. Oh, thanks, great. So that's what this proposal effectively does, is just to add a member that represents from, I don't recall what the final language is from, with school energy efficiency and energy performance contracting, there is a nationally recognized organization if you want to be more specific than that, but I think this would get you also where you want to be. Thank you. My question is, does he want to be on this group, or does he want to be on the group that's actually going to be doing the work? Like this task, correct me if I'm wrong guys, but this task force I think is pretty much just going to be working this summer in anticipation of that study coming out. And then, I mean, especially if we follow the Rhode Island model, then there will be like this oversight body that will be created, that will be working for, I don't know, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years, who knows. And actually doing the work of retrofitting schools and choosing how that's going to happen. I'm just wondering if he understands that this group isn't really getting into the weeds in that way. I wouldn't be able to speak for him. And I don't even think I recall him saying he wants to be the one I think he just sees a need for somebody that knows. And as I looked at the composition and I saw somebody with expertise in building development or construction, I just thought retrofitting energy performance improvements also might balance that out, but you raised a good point. Yeah, and I also had a request from a student who would like, who thinks we should have a student rep on this group. So I wanted to bring that to, but that's sorry, I could do that later, but I wanted to bring that up. But and also, didn't we originally have one center there and one house rep? We did, and then the house asked us to have a better view at it, but we can easily pull it back, which I'm more than comfortable doing personally. I can leave it up to all of you. So it'd be reducing down to 13 and then bumping up a student, possibly this person or a student and another person. Ms. Conline, do you mind weighing in on this a little bit? Are you interested in just, you can say there, Senator Shendon. Yeah, so I'm just texting about another group and I don't, we're not aware there is another group. Okay, it's our impression this is the group. Oh, no, no, no. I mean, it is the group for now. This is the group that's going to design the state aid program. Correct. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that is the group that they were thinking and as Senator Shendon said, they were looking for somebody with expertise in performance-based contracting to have a voice there. Sure. They're also very knowledgeable in leveraging federal money as well and grant money. So that's another thing. Yeah, great. No, it sounds good to me. So is there one person in the state? I'm assuming we could either ask the governor's office, the speak, somebody would have to nominate. We don't put names of course in these kinds of things. The treasurer is a possibility for the treasurer to appoint somebody. But when this happens, I'm just trying to get a little bit of a sense of, are there, do we know if there are many people out there that do this work? If all of a sudden this person seems great, great, but if not, is this going to slow the process down in any way that actually just can't find the right person because there only, there's only one in the state and nobody thinks he's the right one. There's more than one. Okay, dear. That's where I might bring the attention back to the National Association of Energy Services Companies. NASCO, they might be a better appointing body to have that broader expertise and maybe somebody that doesn't back to generally offer perspective on this important topic. Senator Wietz, Senator Wietz. I'll just assume that the governor's office would have. We'd be open to these types of recommendations on where to source. I'd leave the decision up to the governor. In terms of what person. In terms of which person would satisfy them. I'll just think about having somebody on there that is involved in the process and then they find out that maybe they want a bit on the job. So they'd be comfortable. Ooh, that's a point. Well, that's a risk we're going to have to assume here. That could happen with the hygiene to the industrial hygienists and we'll have to make sure that it gets taken care of. But yeah, my only other worry is that the group might get a little unwieldy, but otherwise it seems like a great idea. And just so we know, so do you want to say anything else about the student? I think it's a good idea. We heard from students. And who would appoint the student and your mind would be good. You, I guess, is chair. No, it's either the governor. No, it's not the chair. It's the committee committees. It could be the secretary. It could be Phillip. I haven't really gotten that far. Okay. All right, so we're going to meet later and talk about this, but any other questions or concerns? If this were to go forward as an amendment from Senator Chitenden, subtract a house member, subtract a senator, and then we bump up and we add somebody from this space contractor, space as in this kind of space, not outer space. And then we would also add a student. We could ask Becky Wasserman to draft that. Yeah, could I, yeah, I want to reiterate for you all that this task force shall cease to exist on July 1st, 2024. Okay. Yeah, and then there will be hopefully another like governing body that'll be doing this work for years to come, maybe decades. So he may also want to be part of that group. The Crafting the State Aid Program, I think it'd be, it'd be a good value perspective to know what that might entail. Gotcha. Perfect. Happy to bring it forward. And I will only do so though if this committee supports it. Yep, no, am I seeing any objections on what the senator has put forward? We support you without the donuts, the sauce donuts. And they're looking for this tomorrow, so I need the time pressure. No, there's no, if you would let Ms. Wasserman know that we're reducing the size with House and Senate. We're adding student and we're adding your person, you know. And then the question is, who does the appointments? Yes. Yeah, let it come. I agree with everything that Senator Tendon's proposed. And I understand the reshuffle and the redistribution of participants. I don't think a student is necessary. Being that everybody on the committee had one at one point been a student, I think they can come with that respect. I think it's nice to have a kind of fluffy, not necessary. You're saying a fluffy? There's a fluffy. Yeah, a fluffy. It's nice to have this, I don't think it's necessary. You could give the House two seats and then the Senate one, but I would really risk it. Yeah, I don't think we need that, yeah. I mean, I still... To keep it on as well. I just, the reason I like the idea of the student is these guys are living it right now more than anybody, but it's the committee's decision. What do you think Senator Peeleck? I like the idea of a two. I also like the idea of having two senators as we were talking about a bipartisan group. Now it would just be Senator Weeks on it. I think that's what Senator Peeleck is talking about. Senator Peeleck. Let's see. Let's, why don't we just, I guess I would suggest, just keep it as is, add the student, add this person. And it's gonna be, this is gonna be summer and fall work. People won't be able to show up to all the meetings and we'll just do the best that we can with what we have. Not drop the rep and the senators, what you just said. I can't, I'm fine with the more the merrier. Is anyone, I mean, I know it's getting big. It's getting big. I think if we drop two and add two, I think the chair of the provost would also, that means we're spending a little tiny bit less money. She's, I don't know how hard and she is in the position, but she does. I think she'd be fine with whatever we end up doing. We're gonna talk to Ms. Wasserman at 4.30. We'll talk to her. That'll give people a little time to think about whether they want the student. We don't want this to come to the floor. God forbid, we'll go down. We'll go down. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have you come back at 4.30, he supports. Yes. No, songs don't. Left over, left over, Kate, Kate. That Kate is gone. Kate is long gone. You know, I don't want too much of a debate over this. We don't have much time, but we have less counsel coming back at 4.30, so people just. Is it an odd or even number based on? No, I don't think it's odd. No, I think it's just generally, it's an odd number historically, but it doesn't have to be. And nothing needs to happen. We could just forget it, that's the other thing. Forget school construction. Don't even forget amending the committee. The committee's already in the budget right now. The hardest part of having this whole thing is deciding who's going to be on there. You know, you have one student that's a male, then you'll want to have a female on there, and you know, it's, I think I like the composition the way it is, because it's simple, I'll tell you, sir. Pick it. Okay. I mean, I suppose a student can always show up to the meetings, right? There's nothing to say. They could always be pulled in for a testimony. Yeah. It's certainly true. Okay. Okay. Dr. Hornbuckle, I presume. Yes. Please, would you be willing to join us at the table and welcome to Senate Education? I don't believe you're from Vermont. I'm not. I'm from Iowa. Would you like my card? No, no, no. I mean, we believe you. Yeah. Thank you. Trustworthy girl. And I'm sorry I'm dressed so informally. I've been tromping around Vermont schools this week, and weekend. Okay. It's been a wonderful work time. Had an opportunity to see some Vermont and talk to Vermonters. Great. So we have you here to come and talk to us about PCB testing in schools. So tell us first a little bit about yourself, why you're here and what you're doing, and then you can talk a little bit about sort of things as it relates to this committee and where things stand with PCB testing. Sure. And then I'm sure people have questions. Yes. So I've been studying PCBs for about 30, almost 35 years. I'm starting to, can you say your name for the record and if you're with a company or? Yeah, I'm Kerry Hornbubble. I'm a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Iowa. I teach and do research as part of my job as a ten-year professor there. About 50% on research because we have a large research program in PCBs actually. I've been studying these chemicals for a long time and was primarily working in ecological systems. I was interested in how PCBs move from one state to another, like from sediment to water and water to air and had been working in many different polluted systems around the country. From the Green Bay Fox River System in Wisconsin to the Garry, Indiana, Chicago area, Southern Lake Michigan Northwest Indiana, around Buffalo, New York, and then started recognizing the importance of emissions of PCBs to air from contaminated areas. And then we started working more in locations that communities were concerned about those emissions. And communities started inviting us to come, especially with respect to understanding dredging and the release of PCBs during dredging activities. And we developed computational models and measurement strategies for narrowing in on this question. So we worked in New Bedford Harbor, for example, the largest PCB superfund site of its type in the country. New Bedford, Mass. In New Bedford, Massachusetts. And we went there at the request of the community and we did an extensive sampling survey and developed models to interpret data and showed the community around there that emissions were important, especially if you live close to the water. We also developed a network of measurements in the city of Chicago and ran air samplers on the back of health clinic vans that served low-income families throughout the whole city with the intention of looking for sources, large sources of emission of PCBs because we had discovered that emissions from Chicago explained PCB accumulation of fish in Lake Mission. So we've become really more and more interested in how people are exposed through their exposure to PCBs, especially through superfund sites that are either intended for cleanup or in cleanup process where people are very concerned. So we started doing this work. We did a special series of studies with communities where we measured PCBs in their blood, in the air of their homes, outside their homes when they were near superfund site. And then we also had a rural community in Iowa who was supposed to be our control. We measured PCBs in their blood, in the air of their community and in their food. We did surveys to find exactly what they ate. We went to the store and we bought it, measured their food. And then we discovered the concentrations of PCBs in their blood was about the same in this very polluted community and this rural community. And that was very confusing till we started evaluating all the ways that they absorbed PCBs. And we discovered that inhalation of children in schools was important. We were very surprised to realize that the concentration of PCBs in these schools in Indiana and Iowa were sufficiently high to be equal to roughly the PCB exposure people had through their food. And that was partly because these communities were not eating a lot of fish. They're eating the American diet and which we classify as hamburgers and french fries and food like that is commonly purchased by low-income families. And when we started to look at why their blood levels were similar, we ended up looking more and more at the air concentrations. And that was about 2015. And at that point when we were getting this data, I started to shift my thinking and my work to look more at why these schools might have high levels and also whether they could be typical of schools. And so we began more studies of PCBs in schools in Iowa and Indiana. And we learned that the PCB levels, not only were they high, but they're also variable. They were variable from one school to another and they are variable from one room to another. And that helped us understand that there's specific sources in schools that are legacy of the use of arachlor mixtures that were commercially produced and sold between mostly in 1950 and 1980. And so then we started to look more at the school age to see if that was a predictor and it is. But unfortunately, older schools before 1950 were remodeled between this time period. And so the schools appeared to be most of them that we had studied who were built or remodeled before 1980 had PCB levels. And the concentrations of PCB levels that we were seeing in those schools were higher than we measured at any site anywhere next to the most contaminated superfund sites in the country, including living right next to New Bedford Harbor, where the concentrations of PCBs we found at the highest was about 38 nanograms per cubic meter. That's living on the shore of a highly contaminated PCB site that also, yes ma'am. Can you give us the numbers that you were finding in the schools? The schools that we found in Iowa and Indiana range from less than 10 nanograms per cubic meter up to about 130 nanograms per cubic meter. And compared to New Bedford Harbor or anywhere, including Chicago, all through urban Chicago, including the Fox River, including right over the Indiana Harbour and Ship Canal, where the highest we saw was 38 nanograms per cubic meter. That was a big surprise to me. And so after 2015, we started doing more study studies, and then we reported a series of studies that showed that indeed schools have materials inside that then recirculate, that continue to release until they're removed. And working with schools in East Chicago, Indiana, we were able to show from our measurements that it was likely coming from the light ballast in their case. We were really proud when they decided to remove all the light ballasts as a result of our work. So then we began to develop this technique to take a measurement and identify what are the likely types of origin. Sorry, but when you took the light ballast out did the numbers get out of the zero? No, because we don't know what they did. So the school didn't invite us to come back and do more measurements. We would have liked to do so, but they didn't see the advantage of that. Maybe we hope in the future they'll change their mind because there's very little data like this. It's very common that even in super fun sites it's also a problem. After they do the work, their reassessment is like a whole nother big study that people have mixed feelings about doing. But I'm sure it is true that they went down. The signal that we can see in the PCB signal was just like the one that we know was used is the mixture in light ballast, as opposed to caulking or adhesives or hydraulic equipment. So I think it's likely it did go. We had a, well you probably know the Burling history, but in our tech center, one area in our tech center had 6,000 anagrams per cubic meter. I walked through that and I saw many pieces of equipment that I'm sure purchased during that time and had it in their hydraulic fluids or the dielectric fluids and electrical equipment. Yeah, and there was like a flame retardant that was put on the metal, the exposed metal as well. Was that sampled and measured? And it was high? Yeah, very high. When I walked through with the consultants and they pointed that out, we had developed an emission sample that we're now using quite a lot in Vermont schools that measures directly what's coming off the surface and it couldn't figure out at that time how to put it on that material because it's rough. But now we've developed a new system to measure it off of rough materials and we're gonna try that out in the future in that kind of system. I'd like to know too how important that kind of source is. Because there's a difference between whether the material's there and whether it's midding to the air. And EPA's regulations are about the solid material and what you do when you find the solid material. But they don't have any advice. And they have no air standards, right? Their air standards are rough guidance. But the thing that I'm concerned about is they don't have a way to link the air concentration to the solid material. In fact, it may be counterproductive and more expensive than it needs to be. Like caulking, for example, is often this little strip and it's sometimes really high concentrations of PCBs. But because the surface area's small, it may not be important as an emission source. Same with if the PCBs migrate into the material around after the caulking's been there a long time. Well, it may be high from EPA's perspective as solid material, it may not be an emitter at all. So we are now, that's now a big focus in my laboratories, developing systems to measure precisely and accurately the emissions off of the material and to track down specific source. It's, we've had many, a number of experiences with districts that have decided to tear down the school, like Burlington. And that's not a sustainable approach, right? And so it's a great interest to us as engineers. So we're a group of engineers and chemists and statisticians. And together we think that we can help, we can develop tools to help schools identify, okay, this thing, and not that thing, you know, that results in what you want to get to, which is way lower exposures for children. And so far it's been very helpful and interesting. We've learned a lot. Yes? Did you ever get down to the Albany, New York area? No, I haven't. G.E. was dredging the Hudson River. Right. Because they had PCBs in the transformers, I think. Yes. And they were just about to enter the earth. Yes. So I'm sure there's some down in the stream. I do know all about that, yes. I know that's, of course, a really famous PCB site, you know, one of the biggest PCBs. And it's also a very challenging problem. And communities, of course, in New York, have been concerned that the dredging process results in increased exposure to them. And some measurements have indicated that that's the case. But again, the levels of their exposure are in the order of less than one microgram, nanogram per cubic meter. And what we're seeing in schools is thousands of times higher than that. You know, and billions of dollars are spent to remediate sediments. And what are schools supposed to do? Right? For us, finding cost-effective engineering solutions to this problem is really important to us. I think G.E. cleaned that up. They did, and they were required by E.P.A. to pay for that. Yeah. Snarky. Thank you. So I'm really glad you brought up how to deal with this problem, because certainly knocking down every school and rebuilding is not sustainable, as you said. Totally agree with that. I would love to hear more about your ideas around renovating or whatever it is you see, once you, you know, or deal with mitigating, I guess is the word for the PCBs. While, what we are planning to do, which is this sort of comprehensive school construction plan across our state, because we have so many buildings that are failing and so many other ways, septic, HVAC, structural, you name it, we've got all the problems. How these two can sort of like, not only coexist, but how they can sort of inform each other as we're moving through the process in the next, I don't know, let's say 10 years. Do you have any like, just anecdotally, anything you can share with us at this point? Absolutely, thank you very much for asking that question, I think. It's remarkable to me how much we learn with the data. We make these measurements of the air concentrations, the air emissions, and also we walk through the school to, I've looked at a lot of schools now and also other environments, and together, putting all that together, the data, the kinds of systems they have, the kind of materials they have, you can hone in much quicker on, okay, how can we do this effectively? And also capture the opportunity to link remodeling or remediation with energy efficiency, COVID controls, and some parts of the United States are also concerned about wildfire or ozone outdoors and trying to figure out how to provide better air quality indoors. If we think about that, all those things together, including reduction of PCB exposures, you get double counting on all of it because it's almost all the same activities. It's frequent, for example, that old windows, old lighting, and old HVAC system is part of the PCB problem. And that's also a big part of the energy efficiency problem and could be part of the air quality problem in general. So, having that all available, having the PCB levels available, knowing about the relationships between these materials and emissions allows you to prioritize. How do we decide where to start and how do we plan in an efficient way so that we capture the opportunity to make these other improvements in the facilities as we go? Thank you, that's helpful. And I know deciding where to waste stream, what goes in which waste stream is also gonna be an issue as we take on this work. I know it is a Burlington. How do you, as a PCB expert, we're, so for example, I would say generally in Vermont, our education system is, I'll just use the word struggling right now, coming out of COVID, lots of high rates of mental health issues with kids. There's a lot of bullying going on. We have a teacher shortage. We have a general labor shortage. Our buildings are crumbling. We're struggling to recruit teachers. So it's already a system that is feeling kind of gradual and struggling, again, it would be the word I used. Like I don't wanna say crisis. I don't think it's a crisis mode yet, but maybe heading in that direction. How do you layer on top of that structure, that ecosystem, this like sort of other, what's feeling like burden? Because it's not just a financial issue, but also I think some schools have experienced that when they do have levels that might trigger an action, that there's not a lot of supports in place and they're feeling, it's just been difficult. How do you put those two together, mesh those two? Senator, I completely agree. And the thing that's happened with our center at Iowa is that parents call us and they're fearful. And then sometimes they've got just a little tiny bit of information, like they, well, there's some schools where parents have decided on their own to make a measurement somehow and they've got a little measurement of a little bit of caulking from the corner of a room and it's high in PCBs. And parents have decided to take their kids out of school. They've decided to home school on this. They ask for more and more information. They ask us to guide them. And the thing that is, they don't have the data. They don't have the right data. They don't have guidance for interpreting the data. They don't have communications that help them put it all in perspective. I think that PCBs are scary. They're known human carcinogens. They're linked to ADHD and autism and heart disease and many other things. And people read that and they Google it. They say, oh my God, gosh, they're here. These chemicals are in my school. Overreact. Managing the process is not easy. And I'm very sympathetic to the school since they've managed this. But they need help beyond just the school principle trying to answer these questions. And certainly the tragedy of taking your kid out of school is so much worse, in my opinion. But people will do that when they don't have enough information. They panic, naturally. And our center is really trying to help people with that. We're trying to release as much data as we can, make as much data available on our website. We have a community engagement arm that helps us with that. And yeah, I can see that's a really big challenge for you too. I must say, in working with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the PCB team here in Vermont have been really impressed with their communications. Unlike most places, Vermont is putting the data on the website. And you can look it up on your school. And so you can see all the data that's already been collected for your school. So you're not in the dark like many places are. And I imagine the schools that haven't been tested are also nervous because they haven't seen their data yet. But it's highly variable. Not every school is going to be in this situation. Lots of schools are not going to be in this situation. And people will be relieved. Some schools need to know right there in that situation. Can you say something about the air and what that PCB in the air, what that impacts in terms of health? I mean, that's one of the things that was striking was you said people off of the coast of New Bedford. Live right next to New Bedford, Harvard. They were inhaling PCB, whatever it might be, residue or whatever. And at that point, it was 100 something or another. But then Senator Hulick, I think, said Burlington was, Tech Center was 6,000. Is that the same measurement? Yes. 6,000. So and those kids and teachers were working there for decades. And I guess I just keep coming back to, if there's another school out there for me, and I don't know if it's likely or not, I would want to know to get those kids and teachers out. 6,000, whereas you were concerned about 100. Yes. OK, thank you. That's exactly right. Thank you very much, Senator Hulick. To follow up on that question, when you were talking about the study that you did earlier, did I may have missed this, but were you seeing higher levels of illness in those books? Like we are. No, we don't do that kind of work. That's very difficult work. I want to mention we're all exposed to PCBs. All of us have PCBs and are blind. It's very difficult to find a community that has no PCB exposure. And this is one of the reasons that epidemiological studies are so difficult. So instead, what toxicologists do, or in addition to trying to design the right study of humans, is do animal studies, molecular studies, cellular studies to understand the health effects. Someone once asked me, could you see how do you make a correlation between people who have ADHD, for example, and PCB exposure? And it's almost impossible to do because everybody has exposures to PCBs. You can't find a population that doesn't. And furthermore, PCBs are metabolized in our bodies. And so even though we measure it in our blood, doesn't necessarily mean that's all we're exposed to because it converts chemicals that are still in our bodies and are much harder to analyze. So we can't design a study that's based simply on measuring people's blood. You have to know what they actually were exposed to. And we don't usually know. We're at this moment, if you will, where we've heard from our director of public health, Mark Levine, who has asked that we not pause stop testing. The House keeps talking about it as a pause. For all intents and purposes, the way the language is being stopped testing. And we're hearing again, so tomorrow, I guess, Dr. Harry Chen is zooming in from Africa. He was Dr. Levine's predecessor, who is also concerned about the possibility of us stopping testing. So we're hearing from medical professionals. Can you weigh in a little bit on the possibility or the options around this idea of stopping testing? It sounds like collecting data informs. I think you have a wonderful opportunity with collecting this data. I mean, a wonderful opportunity to provide clear guidance to the schools. And you have a wonderful opportunity to help them think strategically about it. Most of all, I think it's an opportunity to spend less on improving your school because you know how to start on this really critical health-related issue. What if it's a matter of repainting? Or what if it's a matter of replacing the windows you already need to replace? It's such a wide variety. But you don't know until you make the measurement. You don't know about where it is. You don't know the magnitude of it. And you don't know the specifics of where to start. You know, you're just lost in either doing nothing or doing far too much. And that concerns me in my community because some communities in Iowa anyway, where we fund our schools locally. And so communities that don't have resources are unable to do anything. And it's only then the communities that have resources that are making able to make these changes. And still, without the data, you can't make the changes in a feasible, effective way. You also don't know what rate to go, how quickly you can go. When you find 6,000 nanograms per cubic meter in your school room, you feel a little bit differently about the urgency. Even then, what I used to think was a lot at 100, and now I have a different opinion about it on the issue of their urgency. But not on, you know, I still want to find out where that is coming from and move it. If you measure PCBs above about one nanogram per cubic meter indoors, you know you have a source indoors. And you probably were going to measure that in most, probably every school that was built before 1980. And so, you know, yes. Would you want to finish your thought first? We're not talking about going to zero, right? You're not going to go to zero. What you're going to do is you're going to reduce the risk of health effects. And you can prioritize it according to the most severe. Yeah, so I would say in our, in the Burlington School, you know this, but there was that one area was 6,000, but then it varied greatly all over the building. We had rooms with zero and one with three kinds of zero. Probably not zero because they had a high detection limit, right? So my laboratory can go to 0.01 nanogram per cubic meter. But typically when you get a consultant, they're between 10 and 20 nanograms per cubic meter. So you're probably not at zero. OK, maybe 10. There were a lot of 10. I don't remember, but all I know is there were a couple that were extremely high and then mixed bag all over the place. But what would you say to, I was reading a great piece from Denmark, which they're trying to rid all of their buildings, not just schools, all of their buildings of PCBs by 2028. And their two numbers were action level of 300 and immediate action level of 3,000. What do you make of those numbers for? They had a, Denmark is an amazing situation. They built these residential towers for people and a lot of them during between 1950 and 1980. And then they continued after 1980. And so they have towers that are PCB free and towers that are loaded with PCBs. Somebody was selling them very effectively there. And the levels were so high in those towers that had used PCBs. They also, like thousands, yeah, in the thousands. And in that case, they're so high they could even see it and distinguish it in people's blood between the tower groups, which is indicative of really extreme exposure. Normally you can't see that because of metabolism of the PCBs. So the rest of us as PCB researchers have watched that and that data is super valuable to us to understand about the situation. And they are trying to use that data also to understand the health effects. It is still pretty challenging because PCBs cause health effects over a very long time period. And they're not immediately, we don't know how to look for them on the short term. But I think it will be valuable there. So I don't know how to answer your question because I don't think they can answer your question either. But they did make a decision about priority, right? Because they have all the data, they can say, okay, we can afford to do this group on this scale and this time factor. Well, we're gonna leave this to a different time factor and different priority because they had the data they could do that. We've been receiving a lot of emails and phone calls from constituents that they're associated with the school. And they're recommending they want us to stop the testing. And I said, well, why do you wanna do that? Well, basically the response I got was, we're not standard for contamination so much higher than the national EPA level. Lower administration. I don't know enough about it. So how do you respond to that? Well, there isn't any national standard in the United States. And for AIR, for AIR, there's rough guidance on based on little information or very difficult to compile or organize information. The numbers that Vermont chose are entirely consistent with the literature about what we know about the potential for health effects based on animal studies, cellular studies, molecular studies and indications from human epidemiological studies. They're totally reasonable numbers. I'm not a toxicologist, I'm an engineer, but of all the measurements that I've made and how people feel about having high concentrations near superfund sites, I think they wouldn't really like having higher levels of these toxic chemicals in their schools than you would if you lived right next to this huge dump site. And if they didn't know what their levels were, then they could worry that they're higher than they are. There's gonna be a range and there's no zero value. Even though the consultants might say non-detect, there'll still be some there. Helping people develop understanding that there's a range of concentrations, there's a range of risk and we just wanna move that all down. We have less risk of exposure. We're gonna never make it zero, but also it'll never be horrible if we know what it is and we take some action. It'll always be a little better and that's our goal for these toxic chemicals. Make it a little better, make it a little safer. Keep going. So how can we work together? What's going on in Vermont and what's your goal? So we already are really pleased to be partnering with Vermont. We're using our research methods in some schools to help hone in on specific sources. We're designing new samplers that are faster, more effective, more direct at materials. We hope that'll help schools make more educated decisions. But yet Vermont's not using our data for regulatory purposes. It's just to help provide more information. And in my view, the communications that's happening here in Vermont is extraordinarily good. Keep doing that, show people what the data is, help them understand their situation, better provide them even more advice and guidance. Really, it's been an honor to be involved in this here. Excited. So, excellent testimony. Appreciate all your activity. Question is, given 35 years in the profession, do you have a thought of why the EPA hasn't established something which all states can use as a relevant testing risk level? I know they're working really hard. I know some of the toxicologists for EPA that are extraordinarily talented scientists. It's my opinion, and I can be wrong, is that the reason is because they don't know how they're gonna pay for it. Not the guidance, but the results of the guidance. What are we gonna do when they put out a guidance and thousands and thousands of schools across the country can't meet it? Or can they pay for the remediation? I think, in my opinion, that's why they're not releasing it because they have yet to figure out what they're gonna do. And I guess this is public, and I should just go ahead and sit down. But I know that we are spending billions of dollars on sediment remediation, and the reason we do it is because of the fish consumption. But if people are not eating fish out of those contaminated areas, the next exposure we should be controlling is PCBs in school air, in the school air. Thank you. This has been excellent testimony, and it certainly confirms where I am on this issue. I don't think I've moved much. I would encourage you, and I know you're with Matt Chapman. I don't know if the house has heard this testimony, house education, but I know they're starting to look into something. They weren't gonna have time to talk to any medical professionals before I think they passed out their bill, so they're sort of jumping into that now. And it would be helpful if they were happy that we could reach out to Representative Conlon, because this is really compelling and important testimony. I think it's really important for everybody to hear. Thank you. So you're heading out soon? You're going back to Iowa? Tomorrow. Okay, all right. Are you in the building for the rest of the day, or? I can't be. I don't think I have any other questions. Senator Gullick. I think I've asked quite a few already. Senator Williams, yeah, some weeks. Nope, thank you. It was really terrific. Yeah, thanks so much. So we'll take a 10 minute break in case anybody wants to have additional conversations with Dr. Hornbuckle, as well as we have Matt Chapman here from the Agency of Natural Resources, and we'll come back and we'll jump in with Oriana, he's the bathroom. Thank you. Great, thanks. Welcome back to Senate Education. Or Yang is with us. Thanks so much for joining us, Ms. Yang, from the Human Rights Commission. You were with us early on to talk about an act relating to Ms. Laney-Zed, but specifically draft amendment that we have on bullying, harassment. We've continued to take testimony. We spent quite a bit of time yesterday hearing from Ms. Heather Lynch, who's an attorney, I believe, in Burlington, who provided us with a lot of good background information as well. And so we thought we'd have you in. And one of the things that's helpful in this committee process, honestly, is a little the back and forth, you know. So if you wouldn't mind telling us your thoughts on perhaps we'll leave it there. Whatever you would like, do you ask to come in? Whatever you would like to say. Yes, so thank you so much for having me back in. And I know you've heard a lot of testimony on this and I really appreciate that. So I'm gonna keep my testimony brief today and then answer your questions if you have any. And I mostly want to spend my time responding to the concerns that you all have brought up. Because to me, that's the most important. So the first concern is one that I've heard from Senator Gulick and maybe you too, Senator Campion. Which is that maybe this bill might have unintended consequences resulting in more suspensions and expulsions of kids, which might further exacerbate this move to prison pipeline. And I wanna share that students who are black, students with disabilities, LGBTQ youth, are the primary victims of peer-to-peer harassment. They are not the perpetrators. And they also happen to be disproportionately disciplined, suspended, expelled, and represented in the juvenile justice system. So they are also the primary victims of the school to prison pipeline and I mean, why is that? Because one of the things that I have learned as the executive director of the Romanian Rights Commission and having spoken to a lot of people who have read a lot of studies is that when marginalized community members are the victims, we tend to ignore it more and we tend to be more hyper-focused when they engage in bad behavior. It is a phenomenon that not only shows up in schools but in workplaces and in policing as well. I would say that if you want to address the school to prison pipeline, you should introduce a bill that limits or eliminates suspensions and expulsions in schools. That limits referrals to the police for behavioral issues. That limits police presence in schools. But you don't address the school to prison pipeline by keeping the harassment standard on reasonably high. The other concern that I did hear come out of this committee is the concern that we're holding schools accountable for behavior that has been learned by their parents or the community and that is already the law and it is good law because we should be held responsible for the environment over which we have control. Schools don't have control over the beliefs of parents and students but they can control the school environment and reduce racist or sexist behavior within the school. That's what we ask of employers and businesses. So a supervisor cannot stop a man from being sexist or having sexist beliefs but a supervisor can stop that employee from treating women differently in the workplace. The behavior is what we concur and what we can limit and use. Remember that this is not a strict liability standard despite some of the testimony that has suggested otherwise. Schools cannot be sued unless students can prove that the harassment occurred because of their membership and protected class. Hard to do. And schools cannot be sued unless the student can show that they put their school on notice and their school failed to do anything. That's notice plus failure to act. Not just notice but notice plus failure to act. And then the third issue that was raised by the witnesses that opposed this amendment is that these Title IX regulations that govern sex harassment are coming out in May and we gotta wait for them before we move forward. And the only reason you would wait for the Title IX regulations to come out is that there's the possibility that the regulations will conflict with the changes here. And here's why it will not. We already know what those regulations will be. They've already proposed what those will be. And most of the time, almost like 90% of the time, the ones that are proposed are the ones that are adopted. Many of the regulations are complementary, not contrary or contradictory to this bill. And the regulations address time frames and notice requirements and they expand the definition of what sex-based harassment is to include other forms of gender identity, sexual orientation, and so forth. The proposed amendment that is before you broadens the definition of harassment, gets rid of a insurmountable legal standard. And it can do that without any conflict with the regulations because state law can be more protective. It can always be more protective. In fact, Vermont has been more protective for years. Thank you so much. Of course, can you explain what you mean by insurmountable legal standard? The severe or permissive standard, yes, has become such that it is very difficult, even in a case where most of us would consider to be harassment, could not get in the door. And what I mean by could not get in the door is they don't get to the jury even. They lose before the jury even gets there, before there's even a trial. So Vermont has been at the forefront, has been the leader on civil rights and human rights issues. The Department of Education in 2023 is now only considering regulations that will consider gender identity and sexual orientation as an expanded definition of sex-based discrimination. Vermont did that years ago. Despite the fact that the federal government issues all of these public assistance programs, the federal fair housing laws do not cover discrimination on the basis of public assistance. Vermont did that years ago. Vermont has been the first and on many civil rights and human rights issues. And it should not back down now. In fact, now is the time to do it. When the Department of Education issues those Title IX regulations next month, the Agency of Education in Vermont will be rewriting its model policies this summer. This is the time that it should also be reviewing the definition of harassment for students in Vermont. Waiting requires them to review those policies again next year, which really isn't a good use of resources for time. The one consistent theme and message that we've heard across the board, no matter who has testified, and that we all agree on, is that harassment is occurring in our schools more than ever. Everybody is in agreement on that. The question then is, what is our role in addressing that? And there's one thing I've learned is that there is no singular answer. There's no one source of discrimination, like there is no one response to discrimination, and there is no easy path. It requires all of us to address what is within or per through. Everyone has to do their part. Parents have to do their part, no doubt. Schools have to do their part, employers have to do the part, police have to do the part, advocates have to do the part, and as legislators, you have to do your part. Your part is to address the laws. That is what is before you. The institutions have said that these laws are, these current laws and policies are robust and no change is necessary, and a lot of witnesses have testified for you that those laws are not, and that BIPOC, LGBTQ kids and kids with disabilities are left out cold. The choice is yours undoubtedly, but choosing not to move forward, choosing to wait is still making a choice. I propose to you that this may be one of the most, if not the most important civil rights bills that you will advance as legislators on behalf of kids in the month. And to me, there's only one right choice, and we have to choose kids every single time. So thank you for allowing me this last response to the program. Absolutely. It doesn't have to be your laugh. I mean, I'm just saying that. Well, you can come back if you want. Thank you so much, both of you, for advocating for kids. It's so incredibly important. I have spent my whole life advocating for kids as well. And even today, I'm still getting emails and texts from students who are still relying on me as their trusted adult. I just got a text yesterday from a kid. She hasn't been my student in like six or seven years, and she wants me to be a reference for her for a job. I'm happy to do it. But it also makes me sad that seven years later, I am still her trusted adult. So I've already, you know how I feel about unintended consequences in my particular district, which I'm hoping Sparks can come in and speak to that in our Office of Equity. Because I want to hear from them. But yesterday, I got a whole new sort of existential angst, having listened to testimony, which is that for me, education, and specifically public education, has always been and is potentially the great equalizer of our democracy. It is, as far as I know, the one institution that can potentially lift kids out of poverty. I'm really worried about that institution right now. It is, and I'm asking you the same question, I've asked multiple people. We are on the verge of crisis. We're struggling now, I would say, public education as a whole. I guess I don't agree that this is an insurmountable legal standard, having talked to folks who are working in schools and who are, you're right, dealing with a lot of bullying. And they are maxed out in many, many ways. I've mentioned this before. There isn't enough staff. There isn't enough, folks are retiring and quitting. I know an administrator who quit because she couldn't keep up with the Title IX issues. True story. Behavior issues off the charts, due to the pandemic and other issues. I mean, yesterday on NPR, I'd recommend you all listen to the data that's starting to come out around social media and screen time and depression and anxiety. Which is, we're finally getting that data. So, again, my thoughts yesterday were, here we are putting yet another, I don't know, workload, another issue, another burden on our schools that are already stressed out to the max. To help kids, but are we not undermining the very institution that is there to lift them up by putting this one more layer on top of everything else right now? That's where I'm conflicted right now. Because we don't wanna tear down the institution and degrade it to the point where it can no longer function as a way to serve our kids. And maybe I'm, maybe this is hyperbolic, maybe I'm overexaggerating. I wish someone could tell me that I am, but no one's been able to tell me that yet in the last 24 hours. So, again, I'm waiting to hear from our Office of Equity in Burlington. I'd love to hear from Wadooski and Essex as well. But that's from where I'm sitting. That's how I see things right now. But again, I really appreciate your advocacy. It's very important. I really appreciate that. And my response to that is two things, which is the burden that is already placed in our schools is already there. And we're talking about changing the standard for how they look at that. And not creating more trainings, but changing the way those trainings are done to encompass a new way to look at harassment. So it's not more, it's different. And the other thing I wanna say, just completely out of respect for that position, is that the same conversation is also happening in Senate and House Judiciary committees whenever there's a bill that proposes to relook at civil rights and the rights of people of color and LGBTQ and people with disabilities, particularly people with psychiatric disabilities. And the same argument is made that the police are quitting, that there is not enough police people who are, not people who are interested in becoming police officers. That is also the argument that is made is that they are also bombarded with their being tasked to do. And I don't even disagree. I don't think we should compare police to educators. I just don't. I'm comparing the similarity and the conversation about when we advance civil rights stuff, that the argument is also made that we are short staffed, that there is not enough people that are interested in doing this work and that people are quitting. And my thought is that there are different responses to both of those things. You can advance civil rights of the people who are most marginalized in your community by changing the harassment standard and also support schools and teachers in a different way. But that bill to support teachers in schools is not before you. The bill that is before you is to change the legal standard. Now if we wanna have a companion bill to this that says we need to provide pay more so that we can attract people so that people don't quit. We need to create a bill that says we don't suspend or expel people for being perpetrators of harassment. That's a different bill. But that is not the answer that people are leaving their jobs or are unwilling to take on these tasks because it's so hard and it is hard. And I recognize that. Is not the response. The appropriate response is not to not raise the rights of marginalized community members. That's all. My God, I mean, I appreciate that. I think we're trying to balance here that workload and protecting kids. But it's, yeah, I think what's the harm if we don't do this. And I think I'm afraid the harm is significant. And so I tune learning as we go here. I know there's some personal stories that were just shared with us about situations that will get to the committee members. We're dealing with PCBs. I mean, do you put an extra, do you switch things around or do you make sure kids aren't breathing PCBs? I mean, I'm like, okay, don't breathe PCBs. I understand. I also have to, I worry a little bit because I'll do respect Senator Gulick. I don't want to keep calling this a crisis until we take more evidence and hear from, I need different schools or different situations across the state. And I think we need to work with those that might be certainly, we do need to work with those that are on the edge as much as we possibly can. But as it's been pointed out, depending sometimes where you live might impact whether or not your school is in crisis. The resources it has, et cetera. So I just, you hear us all grappling in having this debate, but your testimony has been helpful to me to understand the situation. And I would have to wonder, or I do wonder if you have it in writing because it is testimony that if you wouldn't mind. I'm happy to answer for that. I would also say that it isn't just where or which schools are in crisis, but the important question is who is in crisis. Ask that, if there's any hesitation, as you mentioned, bringing in the people who are most harmed by the existing policies and the existing training and the existing standard and laws are the people that you want to hear from. And as confident as I am in saying that I represent a lot of the voices that are here, you need to hear from them directly, and that's important to me. Related to the Senator Julik's question about or her hope to bring some folks in, can you help us with that? Mr. I don't know who Sparks is, is that a? I'm in contact with her. He's hope might be able to come in Friday. Okay. I would say that I- And I recognize people on vacation, it's hard, people schedules. My work is such that I would not bring anybody in because it's all confidential. But I do know that NWTTP, there's a lot of community groups that do have those kinds of connections without the confidential burdens that I carry. Right, please. Yeah. Senator Julik and Senator Williams. But just to be clear, you are putting the onus on school notice and failure to act after one event, after one transgression, correct? That's the new definition. So the, is that that could rise to the, that a single act could rise to the level of harassment under the new definition and that the onus is on teachers to report and investigators to review. But what we learn is that when they don't do that, they don't find it that there's more. Oftentimes there is more, not just the one, but the one should trigger the report. All right. And teachers, I think, would be glad to just report it to the administrator who's tasked to do that job, right? And the administrator who is tasked to do the investigation is already supposed to be interviewing these individuals. The key is, is that knowing that it's just one time still requires you to review if there could be the possibility of there being more. That's it. But you don't see the notice and failure to act after one event is adding to a more litigious environment in schools. You don't see that connection. You don't see that happening. This is a district standard that says anytime someone uses one word that you're going to court. It still says trivial inconveniences and petty slights are not actionable. And what we do know is that we have case law that says even one groping is not enough. We have case law that says sexual assault one time is not enough. And we're saying that's got to at least get in the door for an investigation. We were told something different yesterday regarding from testimony that we have with, that that wasn't necessarily your case with Title IX. That, right? This was Heather Lynn. Yeah. Would you remind me what you would call so I can just confirm? That one time did trigger action? It should, but it doesn't. And there's case law that has said one time is not because the standard is severe or pervasive. And one time may not trigger severe nor pervasive. For sure one time is not going to get you to pervasive. Rape will get you to severe one time rape, but groping may not. We don't know that. We do know that there's case law that says it doesn't. And we have some case law that says it could get in the door. But we've had cases across the country where they have said that that has been lost. And the legal standard is still severe or pervasive to get into court. To hold a school accountable, you still have to show that it's severe or pervasive. Regardless of what any policy says, we're talking about changing that legal standard so these kids get their day in court. Thank you for your testimony. You're calm, the mayor, you know what you're talking about. You also said that you already know what the new title nine is going to be. I asked the question the other day, if we already know what it is, why don't we start working towards it? Yeah. If it's that important issue, why are we, I don't think we should wait, we think we should. So they propose the regulations and then they ask for comments on it and then they finally adopt it. And usually you just wait for the final adoption so before you act on it with policies and so forth. So you've seen the adopt the... The proposed regulations, yes, yes. And what I'm saying is, having seen those proposed regulations, there's no contradiction here. You can create this law, this change now. So what do they say about severe and pervasive? Oh, but that's still the standard. That you're talking about. Yes, that's still the standard for it to be actionable in that it has to be severe or pervasive. Now that's undisputed. That in order for a student to bring a case in court, it has to be severe or pervasive. Now I want to tell you about a case that was lost at the Vermont Supreme Court involving a student who was raped and she filed a claim and the Supreme Court, because the severe or pervasive standard, as I mentioned, is inconsistently applied across the country. And the Vermont Supreme Court even said at one point, the student lost on administrative reasons because they had not supposedly exhausted the process at their school. But before the court dismissed the action, the Vermont Supreme Court said, oh, well, we don't know that rape is bad, but is it even severe and pervasive? Vermont Supreme Court even said, oh, the standard is severe and pervasive. There are reports across the country that are using an even more stringent standard that requires that schools, a case of action has to be severe and pervasive. We know that's wrong, that the legal standard is severe or pervasive. That's what came down by the US Supreme Court. But we're saying even the severe or pervasive standard is too high. What year was that? Which one? The US, the Vermont Supreme Court? I don't know, last decade though. It's, yes. Within the last decade? Yes. And the issue in that case, I remember it being that the student had reported the rape and the person who was receiving the report didn't know how to treat rape as sexual harassment. They said, oh, I knew it was like a sexual assault. I didn't know that was sexual harassment. Yeah. One form that we got yesterday, summary of major provisions of the Department of Education's Title IX that we noticed in proposed rulemaking says that prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination, the proposed regulations would prohibit all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity. And then it goes on in section 106.2, defining sex-based harassment, addressing off-campus conduct, approving rights or contributes to a hostile environment in a recipient's education program or activity responding to sex discrimination, ensuring recipients learn the possible sex discrimination. So it's got, I mean, there are eight pages of... It's almost like a hundred pages of regulations that are coming up. Now, what's really, it's actually, these regulations are great. What they're doing is for the first time, we have a federal agency saying under, because a lot of these were lost under the Trump administration, that under the Biden administration, sex discrimination includes sexual orientation, rape, sexual assault, gender identity discrimination and so forth too. And that's wonderful, but it maintains severe or pervasive for it to be actionable because federal agencies don't change substantive law. They interpret existing substantive law. What you're being asked to do is change the substantive law in Vermont. You're being asked to change the definition and broaden the definition of harassment, which you can do. You can be protective. And there was a lot of testimony yesterday around how robust or bullying rules are. What is not before you today are the law around bullying, but I do want to just say they are not robust. We have kids and families who are calling us every day about being bullied and they have nowhere to go. We don't have jurisdiction over bullying. Nobody has jurisdiction over bullying except the schools. They are not robust and we have families saying that nobody is addressing this. They don't have the right to appeal bullying to the agency of education. It ends where the schools end. And so relying on quote-unquote robust bullying policies to address things that are not severe or pervasive is insufficient. It is not enough. It's inadequate. So for me it's helpful just to think of the briefest description of what we'd be doing here. So I always think of an elevator speech. We'd be broadening harassment definitions with this. So that students get more of a voice, more of a hearing based on one situation. But again, for action to be taken, severe and pervasiveness would have to be proven in order for a student to be suspended or expelled based on. There's a protection around discipline for the student. It's more on the school itself. They ignore it and the school itself would be held accountable. So tell me how much of that. Y'all are so okay. Okay. I'm already so right. Yes, please. If you change the legal standard and broaden the definition by getting rid of severe pervasive and you adopt what we say here, which is looking at the totality of circumstances and that someone can belong in multiple protected classes and that it's possible that one instance is enough. But that instance cannot be a trivial slight or a petty inconvenience or what did I say? Petty inconvenience and trivial slight. I forget. Is that if a school is on notice and a school fails to act and a student can prove that that harassment is because of their membership in a protected class, that they could bring a claim to court and that that claim could get to a judge and that claim could get to a jury. Do we know that they're going to be how liable? No, because it is ultimately up to the jury to determine whether that rises to just trivial petty inconveniences or whether it is harassment that as a society we go, we don't want this. We don't want this. Now, when we're talking about should we be disciplining kids who engage in harassment? That's a question for the disciplinary policies that each school adopts or each Super Advisory Union adopts for how they ought to address that. I think there's some good statistics out there which of course I don't have before me. Is there very few, especially around sexual harassment, very few students are being suspended or expelled for engaging in sexual harassment, but like really low. So this idea that they're being suspended or expelled because of the harassment is not necessarily the case. But as I mentioned, if our concerns are around disciplining kids for engaging in harassment, that's not this bill. That could be a different bill that we could use. Any other questions for Ms. Yannick? Good testimony. Great tip. I mean, no matter whether we agree or disagree, I mean it was well done for sure. Yeah. Thank you so much. And you'll provide us with something to write in. Absolutely. Yeah. Ms. Garsis, anything from you at this point? We're okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll put this up for probably tomorrow afternoon to decide which way we want to move on this. Friday at the latest. And if anybody needs to hear from anybody else, I think it will actually, let's wait, we will hear from, is it, sorry, is it Mr. Starks? Sparks. Sparks. Mr. Just Sparks. That's his name. Sparks. Okay, so we'll hear from Sparks at some point. Hopefully on this issue. Okay, we're waiting for ledge counsel. So why don't we go off for a second and Beth is gonna come here and talk with us a little bit about 483. Sure, I'm good. And thank you. So can we go ahead and do our executives?