 Good afternoon, welcome to Senate Education, Friday, April 28th, 207 p.m. Little late starting, so we've switched things around because the floor went long. We're gonna spend time, first about our with on PCB testing with Matt Chapman and then Paul Burns. Then at three o'clock, Mike Smith, the interim president of the Vermont State University is going to join us here for a conversation. After that, we will just keep going through every all of our agenda items that we postponed earlier in the day and hopefully make it through. So with that, Mr. Chapman, PCB testing in schools, we have folks in committee who are, I think generally, will have questions. They've been asking questions. There's been a lot of information out there and we thought it could be helpful to have the agency back in to talk to us a little bit and just fill us in on why you think it's important that PCB testing not be paused. I think, and I don't wanna speak for the committee, but there seems to be this a couple of things I would say. Well, this isn't the committee I would say from emails. From one representative I read, wrote, we don't wanna disrupt the lives of kids. And then we have the agency of the commissioner of health and our former commissioner of health saying, this is about kids. This is about health and kids. Then I'll hear something about, this needs to be more in line with school construction. And so those are some of the things that I think people are kind of grappling with. But if you could just sort of kick this off, and this would be a great time for us to ask you questions so we all understand what a pause would mean and what it would mean. And also help and remind us, as I think we have all been told, it's really not a pause. So floor is yours. Sure. For the record, my name's Matt Chapman. I'm the director of the Waste Management and Prevention Division. Within that division, there is a program that basically oversees the remediation of contaminated sites. So the things you think about in Windsor County, like in Springfield and Windsor or in Burlington, the Main Street Barge Canal and frankly some of the Brownfield's cleanups. So basically what I did, and I provided this electronically, I believe there are paper copies as well, I kind of tried to summarize a lot of sort of what the program is, both because I think the committee's had a lot of testimony, but it's been spaced out over time and hopefully this is helpful to just sort of summarize what's going on and sort of the very simple level what the program is doing. Yes, and this is, I saw this because you did send it to the pro tem, he made me aware of it and so I appreciate sharing this with the committee. You're welcome. So, you know, again, just to sort of loop back, I think everybody knows, PCBs are known carcinogens and they have also significant non-cancer health effects. They were used in building materials such as caulking, blues, emastics and as insulation and electrical equipment between roughly 1930 and 1980. And in 1979, EPA basically banned the use of PCBs. Over the past over years and I think Dr. Hormbuckle sort of underlined this, we've become increasingly aware of the impacts of ventilation of PCBs as a receptor to basically an average human health receptor. And so indoor schools, and again, I think Dr. Hormbuckle went through this, often have ambient air concentrations higher than at federal Superfund sites and have been remediated for PCBs and roughly 40% of schools have been tested today, exceed the standards, but not all of those exceeding sorts are equal, right? Like there are some that have some issues that we need to work through. Some of them are still needed to be worked on but they haven't frankly, I think, posed any issue whatsoever to school operations. So the program's been developed to basically, as I said, sort of test for PCBs in schools thoughtfully and frankly in consultation with national experts and Vermont school officials, we follow sort of an existing set of practices we have for cleaning up contaminated properties. So that allows us to basically use sort of practices that have been in place for about the past 45 years to help guide decision-making processes for how we go through and investigate and clean up schools. We have a group of consultants in the state that are familiar with those practices and understand how to basically conduct the investigation that needs to be conducted to both identify where the contamination's at and then how you clean it up. And there are about 20 people in my division who work for me who are basically analysts who help those and oversee those consultants do the work. So when we developed the program, we reached out to, and I guess we also reached out before we sort of started this, to EPA Dr. Warren Buckle and to the consultant community generally in the state to try and advise us on how to create a PCB testing program like this and work through challenges and issues before we actually get into a school setting. And I think equally important try, and I think this is something we improve upon every time we have an issue, improve our way of communicating with schools and trying to learn from schools what the best way of communicating with them is and how we can help them because I do think in my experience, each school is different. Each school has needs to have basically time devoted when there's an issue to help work that school through the issue, communicate with people. And we do what we can to devote as much personal time when there's a significant issue as possible to work with those schools to address the issues. So again, we worked with outside experts, school officials before the program began and then we've sort of continued to adapt the program as we've been out there to sort of address and build, take their concerns into consideration. We've tried to make efforts to be adapted and flexible while also making sure that we're consistent in protecting health. So when we developed the list of schools that were going through the program, we prioritized schools that were likely to have the highest levels of PCBs based on the history of the school, of the construction history and certainly the age of the building and also focused on populations that had the highest percentage of free and reduced lunch as sort of a metric to make sure that we're getting some of the most vulnerable Vermont populations as early as we can in the process. And then lastly, sort of the, well, going on, the program also took into consideration the lessons. Frankly, the Department of Health was in the front line of learning, but we certainly had some experience on the impacts of disruptive learning on students and frankly, trying to minimize this program's impact on schools and school operations. And basically, some of the things that we've tried to do in building this are allowing schools to continue using impacted rooms for limited periods of time while we're trying to consider what the cleanup options are and also whether there are mitigation options that we can sort of bring the levels down on short-term basis to keep those rooms unimpacted. And the other thing that we try to do is, again, use mitigation measures, sort of increase ventilation, increase filtration or sort of barriers between the PCB-containing material and the student to allow unrestricted to the area while you try and come up with whatever the final solution for dealing with the problems are. And once we actually have reached the point of mitigating the issue, bringing things below the IAL and ideally below the south, so sort of below our standards, we can be adaptive with the school and basically speed things up if there are community concerns and they want to try and accelerate cleanup alternatives, whether that be based on school schedule or just general public concern. Or alternatively, if there are future construction considerations that a school wants to take into account in doing the cleanup, we can slow the cleanup down, right? Like once we've mitigated the risk, we can take time in doing the final cleanup. So that is an option that's out there and it's on the table. So that's sort of a very broad brush overview of what the program is. I think there's one thing that I would like to just point out on the pause bill of 486 has passed the house and something that is of significant concern to me. It's caused, people refer to it as pausing the program. I don't believe that it does. What it does is it terminates A&R's ability or excuse me, the agency of education's ability to fund the investigation portion of the program for any schools going forward. My reading of the bill is it does not pause the school's obligation to test. If you go back, I mean, if you go back through the laws and how it was written, the obligation to test is placed on the school and the state has an obligation to fund that test and it pauses the funding, it doesn't pause the requirement to test. So the agency of natural resources thinks it's really important to continue with this program but if the committee doesn't choose to do that, I don't think the house effectuated what they intended to do with the bill that they passed. Can you, I just want to make sure I fully understand what you said. Just run it by me one more time. Just want to make sure I fully understand. So with the bill that's passed the house? Or just generally with the... The concern that you just expressed, can you just say... So with respect to two concerns, right? One is the bill is passed. The way it works is it basically ends the agency of education's funding opportunities for any schools. It stops the testing and basically curtailes funding in between up for schools that haven't been tested after the bill has been adopted. It basically pauses the funding. But if you look back, this is not necessarily, there's a number of enactments for PCBs in schools with different obligations and different funding sources in different places. But at the end of the day, there's a requirement on schools to do the testing by 2025. And there's no pause or termination of that 2025 testing obligation. My reading of H486 is that the obligation to test continues to exist, but the state's ability to fund that testing obligation goes away. And then I guess I would just say, so back to the sort of underlying issue in the agency and I think I certainly speak for the other agencies as well. Can you just wait one second on that one so I'm thinking about it? Sure. The House wants testing to continue as written. At least the bill says continue to test, but to stop the AOE from funding the testing. The way the bill was constructed, it ends the funding for the testing. Okay, and requires. It fails to address the actual act of the testing and testing, right? So you will remember, Senator, you put a deadline in, there was a deadline in place for testing that deadline runs to schools, not to A&R. So the schools remain obligated to complete the testing. We just wouldn't have the funding to provide money to test. The House. Sorry, go ahead. While I still have it in my head, would that funding requirement then fall on the schools or the state? Schools. Schools. Okay. But I thought that this bill, gets rid of that 80-20 split and makes it so that the state is fully responsible for the spending. So it does for any school that had tested prior to the effective data for 86, it does get rid of that funding obligation or that 80-20 split. It makes it 100%. For any school after the effective date, there's no contracts or funding available to do the work, but the work still needs to be done for testing. May I just ask the floor, but did the House happen to have you in to testify? I was never asked to testify. I mean, we're finding this with this bill. It sounds like it was largely superintendent's association, but I'm glad you're here and this is very helpful. It's cool. Yeah, Senator Williams. I think it was a misconception up there. The emails I've been getting are a pause for testing because they think the school districts themselves didn't have to pay for it. So is there a policy letter or a letter that explains that that we can put out there for people to see? Yeah, we could always draft an email to, I know I've been responding to a bunch of different people, but this is new information to me also. I think, I don't think this has been shared in committee yet, has it? Earlier? I feel like this really confuses the issue a lot more for me than what I previously understood. Yeah. Not feeling, I'm not putting blame on you. Oh, I figured that. You need to confuse it. No, it confuses my own previous understanding of what the bill does and I just want to share it with you. Senator Weeks. I think we can square it out of way, but it's a good highlight. We just need to square it away with the line which always says what it really does. And to be clear, I'm sure that wasn't the intent of what the drafters of that bill intended to do, but in reading it and going through the various sort of enactments that are out there, that's my opinion is what the effect is, which is why I wanted to flag it to make sure that if the committee chose to move forward. Deeply, immensely grateful. We put almost all 486 except the pause in the bill. So if we had moved forward, this would have been young. What we refer to sometimes has the cause. Yeah, Senator Gilligan. Would you just refer to, could you just read to us where you're, just so I know, where you're seeing that? Sure, actually what I'll do and maybe what it's better and I'm happy to actually provide a supplemental sort of statement to you because the legal requirement for schools to test is actually not in what's being amended here. So I can give you the reference to where there's a deadline for schools to test by 2025 so that that's clear. You're going to provide it before 2025? I will test it before 2025, yes. Question? Yeah, please. So very clearly you outlined that approximately 40% of the schools tested today exceed Vermont standards. What percentage of schools have already been tested of the overall population? And what percentage of schools were scheduled in the first way to be tested there? So, can you give us a sense of where we're going? Sure, and I can give you a good number on how many have been tested, but I mean I think the goal was to frankly start a little slow so that we could work through a few schools at a slower pace and have an understanding of what's going on and then increase basically through the time we're in right now the number of schools that have been tested. Give me a second, I have that data. And I'm actually not going to assume that, I don't know what the house wants at this point, frankly, I mean it's been out there for a long time. I'm really not sure what they want so we can always loop to them. Maybe this was their intention, who knows? Maybe it was just a mistake. I think of my sense is at the time of drafting when they transferred it back to us that it was their intent to pause. It had nothing to do with finding that. They just wanted to stop until the school construction effort was more mature. So as of Monday, 20% of the schools had been authorized, we had basically approved purchase orders for them to move forward and be tested. So we don't know how many contractors have actually been on site and done the work. Okay, so 20% authorized, I know that 20%, how many have actually kicked off? So I'll, what we do is we work with the consultants to basically authorize their authority under our contract to move forward and sometimes they go right out that day, sometimes it's a week, it depends on the availability of the contractor and then they report to us once they've done the testing. Right, got that. But how many have started? Or how many have been triggered at start? So there are 67 schools that have been sort of authorized to test. And there are 97 schools that we've sort of begun the process on. So the first thing we do when we start this process is we actually go out to the school to conduct a building inventory and look at how building materials, HVAC systems, other sort of common PCB containing materials might be in like rooms. So it's a fairly detailed analysis that we go through to basically reduce the cost of testing and improve the accuracy of the information that we're collecting. It also I think helps us when we get to a point where we find a problem to focus in on the areas that might be the source of that problem. Right, my question is really just get around how far down the total first phase of testing have you contracted or have you exercised? So we're contracted to basically test all of them. We've authorized contractors to go forward and test on 20% of them. 20% of the first set, not 20% of the total population. So 20% of the total population. So 67 schools out of the 321 that are hired in the testing program. You have contracts for those? So we have contracts. So the way we structured our contracts, they're basically PCB testing and remediation contracts. And they cover all 321 schools. Right, and what we do is we've scheduled out with the contractors how they're gonna wish schools go first. And we worked with districts and schools if they wanna make adjustments based on population concerns or alternatively, they have a construction project and they wanna push themselves back further down the list if they're gonna replace, say, their HVAC unit and rather than going this summer they wanna go next summer, we can accommodate those to some degree. So the contracts cover everything. That 20% is basically, we basically have signed an authorization for the contractor to go out to that school and do the work. And so I don't have, I don't have the numbers of like whether they've actually tested today, right? You're dumb. So do the, we were told the testing was gonna be complete in October. It's not for all schools. So the testing is scheduled to be complete by 2025. So are there enough contractors to do it? So we currently have enough contractors that we will meet that. We think we're going to meet that deadline. We are on pace to meet that deadline. Yes, we do. Thank you for your testimony. A couple of things. My general sense about folks wanting a pause on this is just that there's a financial requirement in the case that the levels are over, that triggered them out, the action levels, that schools haven't budgeted for. They just haven't budgeted. They weren't expecting it. They didn't, they're not prepared for it. I mean, is your agency prepared to help those communities that might have to cut other funds? For example, staffing or programs in a school because they have to fund this testing program that's been imposed on them. So I'm gonna defer to the Agency of Education on funding formula and how funding takes place. I mean, we certainly support, we have conversations in support, but I mean, they're effectively accessed at fund dollars and they're kind of the lead on with the schools on funding and how funding moves forward. I mean, certainly again, getting back to, trying to work to accommodate schools' needs is we can work to accommodate schools' needs on what the cleanup pathway is. So there's some pathways that are more expensive than others, right? So we can certainly work with schools on that. We can also accommodate things on timing if there's a need to work on that. I mean, obviously too, you know, we're happy and we try to work to see whether there are other opportunities for funding beyond that end to the next. And my other question is, have you worked at all at reducing the level of panic and fear that this might be fomenting in a community? And the reason I ask that is because one thing that we learned in COVID, at least I learned, is that there are some kids, frankly, who are much safer at school than they are not in school. And so I am concerned that when panic is created in a community, you get kids being pulled out. That's worrisome. And I also just want to reiterate that this is obviously a multi-pronged, complex thing that we're dealing with. And I have to quote my husband again, guys. I know you've heard it already, but I thought this was a great quote. Oftentimes here in this building, we are voting a binary on an issue that is not at all binary. And I really feel like that's the case here. This is like a really complex, multi-pronged issue. And we're gonna be voting yes or no, which is unfortunate, but sorry, go ahead. So first of all, trying to address community, like the community concerns is really front of mind in a lot of what we do. And I think that we've tried to take the approach of really devoting, when we have sort of an exceedance of an immediate action level, sort of a higher level, to really give time and personal attention to a school to help figure out what the school needs as far as communication assistance. I'm going down next week to have a conversation with the school, right? And walking a community through some of the issues that are there. You know, I think we've learned a lot through the process. And I think that we've also, you know, we've been able, and I think this is one of the reasons why this program is good. And I don't want to pause or change it, is that I think it really is geared towards trying to keep students in school. We've tried to make changes to accommodate that. We've worked with the health department to try and make sure that happens. While concurrently making sure they're safe and not exposed to chemicals, but I think we appreciate their, there are two concerns out there, and you're right. This is a complicated program. And I think sometimes, you know, there's, some people have said, well, lead in school, lead in drinking water fountains. You know, why isn't this as easy as that? And unfortunately, PCBs are a lot more complicated than addressing lead in a drinking water supply. They're unfortunately equally or more dangerous, right? So it's trying to figure out how, you know, addressing the issue as well as we can. But I agree in trying to keep people as calm understanding that, you know, normally these are extended exposure risks that we're talking about. We can address these problems. It's not normally an immediate impact by being present in school. You can try and, you know, do a lot of things to minimize exposures and mitigate the harm. That's huge, yeah, the extent of exposure. Yeah, people don't always understand that. And you're talking to people about that in those communications. We are, and you know, I mean, I think we've had the benefit, and if you, you know, I think the health department, and particularly like Dr. Boats or Dr. Pragan, who were the public health section, it might be worth the committee seeing the changes that have been made to sort of how we approach this. We're looking at multiple different occupancy scenarios for how a school can tailor, how they're using rooms when there's an issue, right? It's not saying you can't use the rooms. Maybe you should reduce the number of hours that you're in that room. Maybe we can help you move around to a different sort of, using that, your room setting differently. So, and sometimes we, you know, when we're in a situation where that particular room is critical to school operations, do you have the ability to do sort of a site-specific review of what's going on? So that is an option as well. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, sorry, Weeks has had his hand up. If I could, I wanted to rephrase Senator Gillick's question a little bit. Who's in charge of communications? Is it A&R? Is it AOE? So, to a large degree, especially on the sort of health and risk communication, health takes the lead on that. They are really good. They have a health communication staff, and certainly are the ones who, you know, talk about that. I mean, basically, if you think about the team, right, you know, health is really there to help understand and communicate the health issues and the health risks. We're there to talk about what the next steps are on the cleanup options and how we sort of fix the problem. And the agency of education is there to help both of us and the schools understand like what school's operating, school operations are, how they work, and frankly, liaise with the schools and be a funding resource for them, right? So, we have weekly meetings and meet actually a lot more than that, trying to keep everybody up to speed, but... And it took us two years to set this up, frankly. I mean, we did. We did. Yeah, yeah. Senator Hashim? You previously mentioned extended exposure and just to go back to that. I mean, when you're talking about extended exposure, are you talking five years, 10 years, a couple months, or? So, again, the health department's probably the better person to get that. So, but I mean, normally when you look at, I think Dr. Levine's statement was that these are really focused on the non-cancer risks associated with PCP exposure. And that normally my understanding is you're looking at one year exposure periods for that, when that happens. So, but again, I would talk to the Department of Health if that's something that we want to dig into. Do you mind if we switch you out of the witness chair? We have Mr. Pino of a follow-up and we can keep going. Yeah, go ahead. I just had one last question for you that I haven't asked yet and it's something I've just recently feel like I'm learning, which is that the younger the child, the more vulnerable they are to PCBs. And so I'm wondering, are you testing day cares, childcare centers, preschools, at least ones that aren't in public schools? No. And the only reason that we're, I mean, the reason we're not is it's they aren't public schools. If they aren't public schools, yes. Right, but once it aren't, we're not. I mean, we certainly would have considered doing something like that. This is a legislatively mandated program and we're focused on what the legislature mandated us to do. I mean, I agree, right? Like pre-K preschool, that's another area where you would potentially want to focus your efforts and resources. If you don't mind sticking around, Mr. Chappan. Hi. We're gonna have Mr. Burns, because I know he has a three o'clock stop and then we have Mike Smith coming in at three from the State College. Mr. Burns, how are you? It's rare that, why? I mean, I don't think he's been in Senate Ed. It's been quite a while. It's been quite a while. Yeah, it's good to see you. Welcome. Thank you. Please. For the opportunity, for the record, my name is Paul Burns. I'm the executive director of the remote public interest research group. And I have, this is my 23rd legislative session with VPIRT, but it is true. It's rare that I get to talk with the Education Committee, so I do appreciate this chance. VPIRT, I think most of you are somewhat familiar with us. We have broad range of issues that we work on from climate and energy to environment, environmental health, public health, health care, democracy and consumer protection issues. All kind of in the broad range of things that we work on. Personally, I have spent most of my time on environmental, environmental health issues over my many years with VPIRT. We have in the past, you know, it's interesting we're listening to your conversation. We've been involved in many pieces of legislation and policy that have tried to protect public health from exposure to toxic chemicals. And oftentimes, those policies have paid particular attention to the risks for our most vulnerable, which is often children, pregnant women, people with weakened immune systems. And so nine years ago, we passed the legislation dealing with chemicals of high concern to children and trying to, you know, and then been a really national leader in efforts like that, trying to identify particular risks to those who are maybe more susceptible to the harmful effects of chemical exposures. We certainly worked with this committee or counterparts in the House as well on the legislation dealing with lead in drinking water in schools at that time and for many of the same reasons that we're talking about here. A well-known, you know, really no dispute about whether lead is a hazard to human health and really no dispute, I imagine, about whether PCBs are a threat to human health. A little bit different than something like methylene chloride, which is chemical used in paint strippers and other things. And I mention that only because in the last 48 hours it's been disclosed that after many years of effort in my organization and others have been pressing for this, the Environmental Protection Agency at the federal level has finally taken action to address in commercial respects the, they're not gonna allow methylene chloride in these kind of stripper products before any longer in the future. It'll take another year before that rule becomes finalized, of course, because these things always take a long time, but that's a situation where you had people who were using it, you know, one day or one hour in the next hour, next day, they are dead. I mean, that's a kind of acute exposure. And I'm not saying I haven't often that it happens. This happened dozens of times, I think, more than 60 times in this country that links to this. And so I'm pleased to see that, and that's part of federal legislation that we have to try to address these hazards, but oftentimes the government is a little bit behind when it comes to regulating chemicals. And even in cases where, as with PCBs, the risk was known, identified, and addressed, you know, PCBs have not been used in building supplies and other things for more than 40 years, in 1979, I guess it was banned. But the risk remains, I mean, these chemicals are stable in the environment and can continue to present risk. I'm not gonna belabor that point. I just wanted to say that we come to this to the idea that generally one of precaution, there is something when we look at regulations of chemicals from an environmental or public health standpoint, something called the precautionary principle. And that can be defined in different ways, but it basically means taking preventive action, even in the case of some uncertainty, where there is enough information to tell you that there's a potential, or even in this case, a known risk, you should act from a preventive standpoint. You should engage the public as much as possible in that kind of process. You should put the burden on the party that would introduce the chemical into a place where people could be exposed to it in order to, you know, in other words, they should have to prove it safe before it gets out there. These are all kind of ways of looking at a precautionary approach. Normally, or oftentimes now, we talk about the precautionary approach when we're talking about new chemicals entering the marketplace, and that's where that idea of the burden on the manufacturer comes into play. Here, chemicals have been in and, you know, been addressed in terms of the marketplace, but it's still out there. And so, I guess it's a question of how you define what is a preventive approach at this point. And, sorry. Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt. No, no, no. But when you're done with that, I can chime in. Okay. But I think that's a question and certainly one that would drive our perspective on this issue. We have supported the state's testing program in order to identify for two reasons. I guess one is to certainly identify the places where there is a real risk to the health of the students, the faculty, the other staff who may be in that building on a day-to-day basis. And the other is so that the state can have the information that you all need as policy makers to make an informed decision as you look at all of the needs of our aging infrastructure. And in this respect, I go by the old saying, knowledge is power. It is helpful. It is simply helpful to have this information, to know, okay, senators, you were asking a question. Well, how many of these tests have begun and how many are underway? Where are we in that process? And because the closer you are to final, the closer you are to knowing, all right, now we can have a better sense of how much money might this cost us. I mean, and I want to say those are tough, tough questions. And I don't envy you, you know, the positions you're in every single day, you're taking positions on lots of important things and you're weighing priorities. And there are limited dollars and unlimited needs. I have a sense of that and some of them are coming from me, so I understand your burden in that respect. I just, I don't think, and the BFIRC's position is not to pause the testing program because I don't think that helps to solve that challenge that you face in having to make those decisions. And it certainly is unhelpful if our goal is to try to be as protective as possible of public health and of the health of folks who as children may have a still developing immune system. There are, I've seen statistics on teachers and most of whom are female in the state, many of whom are of childbearing age, some of whom are going to be pregnant in the school and it is those kind of exquisite exposures that happen at just the right or just the wrong time that can have negative outcomes. I'm not a doctor and I don't pretend to be one here, I'm just saying there are real risks that we're trying to prevent. I think the goal of that kind of preventive action is benefited by having more information that can come from these tests. And as a person who believes in that other aspect of the precautionary principle that we should in whatever possible engage the public effectively in decision making processes like these, I think we should do so from a position of knowledge that the fear is there. The fear is there now, like might it be a problem. I will say personally that I have a child in school here in Montpelier. The Montpelier elementary and middle schools are quite old, if you don't know them, they're only a couple of blocks from here but they're quite old. And about three weeks ago, we got a note from the superintendent of schools letting us know they have been tested for PCPs and that they have no elevated levels that were of concern. And I have to say I appreciated, I mean it's something I think about a lot. I mean, I've worked in this area but I think about I knew the tests were gonna take place and I was pleased to hear that. I think all parents deserve to know, deserve to have that sense of comfort that can come from a test that shows there is no problem. And if it's a test that shows a problem, I think they have a right to know that too. Not because it's not necessarily a cute problem there but yes, it will likely spur some action and I don't mean it to be more than necessary but I know our same school did have some problems with lead and I wanted those shut down and because no lead in your body is a good thing, it's all bad. And I appreciated the tests that found the problem that led to preventive action then. And so I say this mostly from a policy standpoint wearing that hat but also as a parent it is useful important information to have. I think from the policy making standpoint so you can have a better handle on it as you make the bigger decisions down the road and from the aspect of just as policy makers doing what you can to help parents understand where and when there might be a risk that could be dealt with and I hope and trust that there are different ways of doing it. Not every situation is gonna end up like Burlington even when you find elevated levels. Mr. Chapman had some conversation about that and I certainly agree. So I think I'll stop there just to say we would support continuing forward with the testing program and there were other aspects of that bill that could be looked at as you take the broader approach of looking at the needs of schools we support that but we prefer not to have that plan, that activity of testing paused at this time. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. And we heard this great organization. A few things. I don't think anyone in this room or anyone that I know doesn't think we should rid all of our buildings of toxins. Like that should be what we do here in America. One of the many things we do here in America. So I 100% agree with you especially school especially where kids are. I think generally the opposition or the confusion that folks have had with this PCB program is just that it seems at least anecdotally that the rollout of it has been difficult for some schools and that the lack of financial support by us, by the legislature has not been forthcoming. So I think that's the crux of this problem and that a question I have that I should have asked three years ago when Burlington got tested is why has it taken us so long to act on PCBs? I know Rachel Carlson had to write Silent Spring for us to do something on DDT. Like when we found out PCBs were toxic and we stopped producing them or stopped using them, why didn't we do something? Like why 2023? Why are we doing this now? It seems arbitrary. And anyway, go ahead. I'll let you answer. I don't have the perfect answer for that. And I fear that it is because of fear that if you test, you may find it. And if you find it, you're then obligated if you have an elevated level to do something about it. And I think that's not a good justification as a matter of public policy to fail to do the investigation. Failing to test does nothing to make the school any safer, the problem any better. And indeed, if your child is in a middle school and you wait two more years, that could be the other two more years that are in that classroom. It's like I applaud you and your predecessors and colleagues for taking this on. And I recognize Vermont is perhaps alone in taking even this step of looking at the schools. But it makes so much sense. I'm afraid there isn't a good answer for why it hasn't been done before. It's just that it is costly and people and policy makers probably fear that gosh, if we let people know what's really out there, we might have to do something about it. It doesn't speak all that well of some of the work that our government's doing, frankly. It's been a couple of decades now. We have a little bit of the FDA also has been slow, not FDA EPA. We've heard historically it's been slow on these kinds and the feds around all sorts of toxins. And it is like when you were saying early on, I remember when we had the PFAS outbreak in Bennington, things will go on the market in the United States until they're proven to harm people, then they're pulled it back. Whereas the rest of Europe now, or the rest of Europe, they're sort of examined and then when they're shown to be safe, then they go out on the market. So it is kind of, I feel, this messed up system. So I actually, I had heard, so I'm gonna ask this question through testimony and had the same question myself. So I actually asked Dr. Warren Buckle just because she has a longer arc of experience working in PCBs. And her response was that up until probably around 2015 or so the toxicology and our understanding of the major exposure route of PCBs was through fish consumption and food consumption. And so the primary focus on things was to clean up sediment and try and remove PCBs from the food supply and deal with major industrial sources. It was really about, we're working on what, maybe 10 years ago at this point where we started to have an understanding of how indoor air and inhalation is a major contributing source to the levels of PCBs and blood sperm. So that was her explanation to be as to why we're sort of pivoting our approach to dealing with these things. The next, that could certainly be part of it as well. I wouldn't dispute that. I, even cleaning it up from waterways has not been easy. And to your point, Senator, Wendy, what about paying, I know there are efforts underway. Try to hold those who made these products. I mean, it is our position and a general matter and across all sorts of particular issues. If you make a mess, you should clean it up. And those who put this chemical into our environment and into products, I think you bear responsibility and they have been held to account in some places. And I think that's something that as a policy matter or perhaps as a legal matter, this day should be looking at as well. Senator Weitz. So given the business that you ran, I know you're familiar with the possible disconnect between EPA levels in Vermont, state standards and VCs. Do you have an opinion on how to approach that gap? It's a fair question, Senator, and I do not. And I don't, I just don't have that level of expertise. I generally look to those who I respect. And I think Dr. Levine and others in the Department of Health have made, you know, I've read their positions and they seem reasonable to me. I do know that there have been many times where it is the states that tend to press for standards that are more protective of public health and that the federal standards tend to have a floor that is higher, I guess, or less protective, let me put it that way, than other chemicals that I have greater expertise in. You know, I think the feds have not been sufficiently protective of public health. I can't comment on the specifics of the PCBs, as you, I wonder, it's a fair question. Yeah, Senator. Just a question from Mr. Chairman. Is there any advertisement, just like public information put out about the testing? Because I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. And you know, if you don't tell it like it is, it just spreads and gets more complicated. Sure, we've been working with our partners at the Agency of Education to try and have meetings with superintendents, principals, and consulting managers in advance of that district going into the testing program, so close enough so that they'll be sort of familiar with what's going on, but not too close to when the testing takes place. So nothing public? Nothing. You know, I'm not sure that we've done a general sort of state public effort, sort of, and maybe that's something we should think about. Yeah, because I mean, information now is public. Now it is. Information, information is gonna, if you don't put it out, people start, the rumor mill in Vermont is wild and wild. Yeah. It just kind of, just works. So I talked to Chair Lyons the other day about, you know, one of the replies I gave to people that contacted me about stopping the testing is that our community has some of the highest cancer rates in Vermont. This is causing it. You wanna know, rather than put your grandkids through the same school house, and they were aware of it, so. And Chair Lyons will be involved if this committee is interested in really still moving something. There's no way it doesn't go to health and welfare at this point. Yeah, you've got to have a look at it. And she was just giving me information about maybe we should have a public meeting. Yeah, yeah. You know, if there is a problem. But sometimes you're better off, you know, you don't wanna put too much information out, like you don't wanna keep it all secret, yeah. Mr. Chair, can I just add? Yeah, please. Before I step aside here, the question about whether, you know, a state standard versus a federal standard is a good one, and I just remind members of your committee that there have been probably dozens of cases over the years, and many that I have worked on where the state of Vermont has established policies that are substantially more protective than the federal government. And that has included lead, not just in drinking water, but in products for children, for instance, in BPA, in water bottles and other plastics, phthalates of plastic bottles. PFAS is a classic. PFAS is another example. And now the feds have caught up. And they do because states press forward, after all the states are the laboratories of democracy, and you would hope that it wouldn't be necessary in things like protecting public from exposure to toxic chemicals, but it is. And there really have been many, many times where Vermont, and in some cases, you know, plenty of other states too, have gone forward. And typically because perhaps they have identified a threat in their community, their state, that has caused them to look into it and caused them to go further. And so I am not one who thinks, oh, that's the federal standard, that's protective enough, as a general matter. Yeah, but opening the aperture just a little bit, I mean, back to the European example, there's different standards there as well. So somewhere we've got to figure out what's the acceptable standard and look forward. That is your challenge. For sure, as policy makers, and what persuades you to come down on one side of the other, and it's what is the thing being used for? And so for, I mean, we used to grapple with these questions, and remember when the kids used to have sneakers that would light up when they stepped down, it had a little mercury battery, and it seems to me the standard there ought to be zero. Like why are we putting mercury in kids' shoes just so they can light up? I know it's cool, but that's the policy that we should have to say no to them, and that was states moving on that. And Vermont became the first state to add point to lights, but Vermont was the first state to pay in mercury in compact fluorescent lighting. And when we do it here, that's gonna remove mercury from all lights. I mean, California followed us then, but, mercury shouldn't be anywhere, and typically things like that, and sometimes it takes leadership, and I appreciate your grappling with this and considering it and considering our comments today as well. We appreciate it. Really good to see you. Yeah, final question. But my last, my last, and then we'll never speak of this again, ever. I, I know, sorry. All I would say is that I think as the legislature, we're gonna demand this and require it. We should pay, we should be paying for it. That's all I'm gonna say. Mr. Burns, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Committee, we're gonna adjourn until Vince gets to his car, and then we'll reconvene an education on this beautiful Friday, April 28th, 305 in the afternoon. So pleased to welcome Mr. Mike Smith to Senate Education. You have jumped in to a, I'm sure, busy and demanding role. So the fact that you're taking your time to come and see us in person, I wanna let you know, means a lot to all of us. Lots of conversations have been had in this committee over the past several months related to the state colleges, everything from funding to the library situation, leadership, and everything in between. And we're just pleased to have an opportunity to talk to you and hear a little bit about you as well as just give the committee some time with questions to get to know you a little bit better. But thank you so much. Well, thank you, and thank you for this opportunity. I really appreciate it. I, less state government, I think it was 18 months ago, but you'll never see me again. And here we are, back before you. I've never appeared before. I was trying to think. I don't think I've ever appeared before the Senate Education Committee, so I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm a little bit about my background. One of the things that is interesting is that I was born in Rutland, but I lived in Castleton my first three years of my life. My parents are both from Castleton. I can remember early walking the campuses of a much smaller Castleton. I think it was called, Castleton Teachers College at the time. And so I have that background, but I also have the background where I was town manager of Hardwick at one time. So I know the importance of the rural community, the rural education aspect of what's going on. As you know, I'm a Vermonter. Went, graduated in high school from Woodstock, went into the service right after high school. I wasn't the best high school student. Went into the service and served in the US Navy first with underwater demolition team 21 and then with SEAL team two. Got out of the service, went back to UVM for my undergrad. Like I said, served as town manager, went back for my graduate degree and held numerous positions in state government and private sector. CEO and president of several Vermont companies as well as Secretary of Administration, Deputy Treasurer and Secretary of Human Services here in Vermont. So, you know, quite a variety of positions, particularly in the private and public sector. Usually, usually I'm called in when there's some issues that have to be dealt with. I thought it was gonna be an easy ride with the Secretary of Human Services when Governor Scott called me because I said I'll do it for a year and guess what, two months after a pandemic started. So, I was there for three years and enjoyed, it was a really challenging time but I'm really proud of some of the things that we did here. We led the nation in some of the things that we did in looking at that, in responding to that pandemic. I've been on the job for about a week as interim president of Vermont State University and I have visited all campuses. On Monday, I reversed two previous decisions. One dealing with the libraries, the other dealing with athletics. I rescinded the layoffs at the libraries. I also put a three-year hold on eliminating or changing conferences with any athletics. That will give me time to sort of get some data that I think I need to know in order to make those decisions. I did say the future is digital in some degree but I'm not gonna dictate what that is. That has to be homegrown and brought up through the system with as much collaboration as possible as we move forward. I will say this, in my visits and including with students, because I did live in, it's not like a regular dorm room but it's our residential director's dorm room. I did live on campus at BTC. I was on Johnson Campus last night, although I wasn't in the dorms there but I think it's important to understand from a student perspective what they're feeling, what they're seeing and that's why I thought it was important. I plan to do it in all campuses, maybe hopefully my students are there but we only got a couple of weeks here but to give it a sense of how they feel, what's going on there. And I've been eating in the dining halls and so I've been available if they wanna come up to me or sometimes I sit down with them to have a meal with them, to really get a perspective of it. Come full circle today. I was really touched by this. There was a family from Hardwick that was viewing the Johnson Campus with their daughter and they knew me from my days as town manager and they said we were a little worried about what was going to happen with the future but what they said to me and it's not about me, it's about them. They said we feel confident in the future of the Vermont State University and that really struggled. That means I have an awesome responsibility. That means I have to, I'm sure they don't have a lot of money. I'm sure like me, their daughter may be first generation. I was first generation non-traditional student. Try coming out of the service and seal team, going to a freshman dorm at UVM. It's not easy on a transition but in those days you had to be in a freshman dorm. But I feel an awesome responsibility now to make sure that their daughter is successful. And I really take that into focus. So like I said, I've reversed some previous decisions. I've visited all campuses. I want to keep the distractions to a minimum because there's a lot of work that needs to be done. A lot of work has been done. I read the select committee's report. I read a lot of the work that has been done. You've seen the book. I haven't gotten through all of it but the book that is huge. Yes, we have. Yeah. Please take one. Yeah. But it is, I'm excited. I don't, I've said this to a few people and I really mean it. I wouldn't have come out of retirement just for anything. There's a mission here that is important to the state of Vermont. It's important to the people of Vermont and it's really important to the students both current and future for this state. And so I came out of retirement for the obligation to try to assist some way in moving that forward. And as you know, Mr. Chair, you and I have worked together in the past on several things. I haven't had the fortunate situation to work with the rest of you but I had this deep commitment to the state that I just couldn't let this one go. I needed to, I'm not popular at home but I couldn't let this one, this one go. So now with some of the distractions out of the way we can focus on the transformation July one. There's a lot of work that has to be done. A lot of things have to fall into place. We're working on them. Got the teams now focused. The other thing I want to do is establish lines of communication. There seems to be, I think part of our problem is that we need a structure, at AHS we had a really good structure so that when I would say things at the podium during press conferences that were new to policy, by the time I got back to Waterbury, it was in place even though it was new. I think the lines of communication are important here. So yesterday I met with several people. I said, I really need the input coming up to me and I need a way for the input for the output to come down so that I get the advice that I need, the collaboration, I don't have all the answers. So the input that I need. So we're going to be setting up a different constituencies, faculty, student, staff that will meet in a president's council that I will feed information down and they will feed information up to me so that I can at least have a path that I can, and it isn't one constituency. There are multiple constituencies that I'm contemplating this to happen. So I haven't been before this committee. You may have a lot of questions. I appreciate the support that the state has given since 2020. I looked at that amount and it's been quite significant, over $200 million to the system since 2020. And you have been very generous as a legislature to us. We have some work we have to do in the future in terms of making sure we're operating efficiently and effectively. And we'll work together to get that done. Basically all I've got to say after a week. Thank you for being here. Can you just tell us a little bit about when you say everything is going to be sort of kicked off on July 1, the transformation. What needs to be done between now and then? We have to have some structures into place. For example, having the faculty governance at least planned out and in place of how that's going to happen. We have different faculty governance units right now within the structure. I think the faculty, we've been working with faculty, my understanding we've been working with faculty to try to come up with a structure where it's a unified faculty governance structure. I think everybody conceptually understands why that's important, but just trying to get those pieces together. That's just one aspect of it. Making sure that we're, all our branded information is ready to go. All our websites are ready to go. And we're moving forward in those areas. So there are some sort of procedures making sure our academics are aligned as we're moving forward for that July 1 kick-off. Center weeks. Just curious if in your brief transition into the role if either the chancellor or the governor gave you any mandates? No. Colleagues? No, just, you know, I think I surprised everybody with how quick I moved on those two issues. And to some degree, I apologize to my staff, because I just didn't. But, and I don't like to operate like that. I like to get some forewarning and everything, but I thought it was so important to get it out of the way. But there's, you know, if there is a mandate, I've been posing on myself as to get transformation done. I've had discussions with the chancellor saying I want transformation to go smoothly. Yeah. We all have to live with a previous legislative dictates. And, you know, we're all new here, except for sure, I can't get it. But, you know, you put me, put my mind at ease when you explain what you've been doing and your minds of communication. That's what I've been and what's called that, managing by walking around. Yeah. And people appreciate that and respect, where you're coming from, I think. And, you know, management, but it's also leadership that I appreciate. And I just hope that if we can help anyway, that you'll come back to us and say, this is what we need. Because I think anything's possible will all work together. Yeah, I, senator, I agree. The chair knows that I'm not shy about coming back and asking for things. So I agree with that. But by the way, I think you're right on. I learned, one of the things I did before the pandemic started, you know, the agency, it was service about 4,000, I think, 3,900 people or so. I learned more about walking around Waterbury and just talking to people about what was happening in that agency. Then I learned at any meeting that I had. So I agree with you there. Yeah, senator. So using the military perspective, there's only one CEO, one committee officer in the unit, but we have a chancellor and a president in the system. Can you explain kind of a vision of the roles and how you see this in your term? Yeah, I mean, we kind of have that structure in human services, by the way. You know, we have commissioners that report to a secretary that has, you know, that has sort of centralized service responsibilities, budget accounting, all that sort of thing. So the model, I would say, is similar to the secretary model in human services. You know, I'm too new to see what is how this works and how it works together, but at the same time, I've had nothing but support along my way. I mean, you know, I made some very major decisions very quickly, and I appreciate the support that I had from both the chancellor's office and the board on making those. I think one of the things that I wanted to make sure was that everybody knew the direction I was going. So that happened. So I guess I'm too new to give you a concrete answer, but I look at, you know, I had six commissioners as secretary, all of them with departments that were huge. And so, and then I control their budgets, I control, you know, the various IT stuff and everything else. I look at it as a similar model. Good, thank you. Anything else for? Yes, please. Yeah, well, in particular, it's your district. And we, we, we're, yeah. State of mind system. Yes, but one is in your district. What led you to reverse the library decision? I mean, it was a distraction. And secondly, I didn't feel that we had the bottom up sort of discussion that we need. You know, I thought, I think everybody agrees that a portion of the, of the collection needs to be streamlined. I think there's no disagreement about that. How we go about it was a different story. And I just felt we didn't have enough discussion at the levels that we needed to pull all this together in order to make sure that everybody was comfortable with the direction that we were going. I wasn't comfortable with the direction. You know, I, I oftentimes will kick things off, you know, kick things against the wall with my spouse. Because she's, she's not political at all. America, when she's talking to me nowadays. But one of the, one of the things that she asked was, why are you taking the books out of the library? And I said, I don't believe we're doing that. But if that's the perception, we've got to slow down and make sure everybody understands what we're doing. You have a perspective on the $25 million mandate, reduction mandate? You know, yeah, I do. That you want to, they're willing to share. Yeah, I'll share it. I mean, the legislature invested, is this a technical term? A boatload of money into, into the system. 200 million since 2020. They increased our base amount by 50%. In return, they've asked us to take care of our structural deficit over a five-year period. If you look at it in terms of our expenditure budget, our expenditure budget for F.23 is about $153 million. That's about 3, 5 million is about 3.3% of that, of that budget. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. Especially if we do it right, we'll be out of our structural deficit in five years. So I thought the legislature was particularly generous I want to work with the legislature to make sure that we come up with our end of the bargain. But at the same time, I want to do it smart. And one of the things that I've often done is broadcast where I'm going. And then take feedback as we go, because sometimes there's a better way than the way that I think about it. Please. Six months is a short assignment. So I assume one of your responses or maybe one of your responsibilities is kind of looking for your successor. Will you be involved in that process? And do you have any concept of how you approach it? I don't know. But six months was an important time for me to be able to do this. Or is that just what you told your wife? That's exactly what I said. No, I said six months. I haven't even thought about that yet in terms of what we're going to be doing and how we're going to be doing it. There are plenty of talented people out there. And so what I want to do is get it set on a path. And I think I can do that in six months. Set it on a path and get going. And where is the search right now? I don't think it's done. Nothing's even been done. It's been a week, so yeah. Great. I'm good. Thank you. I moved from Westford, by the way. Just moved a little while ago. From Westford or to Westford? From Westford. To Isle of Mott. That's my home now. It's not easy commute. Nice. Great. Mr. Smith, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. I appreciate your time. And again, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I've done this for a few years, so I don't mind answering any questions. Yeah, please be in contact. OK, yeah. Thanks a million. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Great. We're just waiting for our next witnesses. Hope to vote out 461. Anybody? Injection to that. You're our person. OK. Is this going to be? We're going to hear from Rachel first. Oh, and did you have your first? Oh, your friend, is it Sparky? Sparks? He cannot make it. Do you want to hear from Sparks before we move this? No, I mean, I know where I stand. OK, OK, great. And where's Mr. Leonard? OK, we kind of need him now. Rachel, just one second. We're going to wait for Damien to get here. I have a couple of questions, because there are a couple of moving parts before we vote this that I want to make sure we're all aware of. That's a good column. And if, for example, we have an issue with this petition, then we're voting no on the whole bill, because it's not in the bill. It's not in the bill. Yeah, it's not in the bill. So we have to see if anybody wants to put it in the bill. OK, gotcha. So Mr. Leonard, 461 has, we're talking about language that was put forward by Ms. Yang on harassment and hazing. What I need to know from you and what the committee needs to know is where else is this language? Because I believe it is traveling in other bills. And so please, and I would say the committee needs to adjourn at four. So I need to vote on this. So we're hoping to, very simply, get the languages added to S103 when Health General voted it out earlier this week. It is now in the House Education Committee, and they started testimony today, or at least I assume it's in the House Education Committee. My expectation is it would have gone to the floor today and then referred over to House Ed. So S103 is not a bill that we ever had. Just to remind everyone, this was a office place harassment bill, workplace harassment bill, and public accommodations. Thank you. That left economic development very early in the session. It went our economic development. Yep. It did not have the language that is, was put forward by Ms. Yang. It did pick up that language in the House, in the House side, and now it is traveling from, it was added, I'm guessing, in House Governments or House General Military Bears. And now House Education has it. That's right. So it's in House Education now. It was voted out of House General two days ago, I believe. So, or maybe yesterday. The draft is dated two days ago, so. So, so everyone knows that this is coming our way, one way or the other. And so, if we don't put it in today, we're going to likely have a conversation about it next, is everything okay? Nope. Let it keep going. You need to leave it for yourself. It would likely be back in this committee sometime next week or the week after at the very end. If it makes it before the finish of the session. It makes it before the finish of the session. Yep. Yeah. So. I don't know how long the process will be on House Education. They just started with it today, so. Great. So now I'm going to shift to Ms. Selig. Please stay. I will. And no, you don't even need to leave the chair. Oh. I promise she's right there. Rachel, thanks for joining us. You wanted to, you have some testimony and share some final thoughts on this before we make a decision as to whether or not to add it? Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much for the time. Getting it up to you, Dr. You're in that area. You're okay. So for the record, Rachel Selig and the director of the disability-bound project, I'd like to see you all again on terms of here with you in person. I very much look forward to you for those languages you've been referring to to remove the sphere of making a definition for asthma, especially as regards to schools. Just a second. We're having some difficulty. I was just wondering if Rachel might want to take her image off. Yeah, that could help. If you disappear, we might hear you more clearly. Oops. Is this any better? It is. It is. Great. Why don't you start from the top? Sure. For the record, Rachel Selig, director of the disability-bound project at Vermont Legal Aid, I am here to encourage you to adopt the changes to Title 16 that eliminate the severe or pervasive definition of harassment, especially as it applies to schools. I agree with the testimony that you heard from Jessica Barquist from the Vermont Network, and I wanted to offer you kind of the perspective of the disability community and disability advocates when it comes to the issue of pain and harassment and bullying. One of the things that we frequently see with our clients is that they are targeted for harassment, whether because of their disability or because of intersectional identities. They live with it, and they live with it, and they live with it. And then when they finally can't live with it any longer and respond, they are the ones who are accused of harassment and bullying. They are the ones who experience the negative consequences. And so you might wonder, why is it that we're supporting this? We're supporting this because we strongly believe that our clients would not have to endure for so long if the standard were lower and that their schools would be much more responsive to the experiences that they're having if they were obligated to start investigating harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive. So I did submit some written testimony to you with a couple of experiences of clients who really fit within this paradigm. One student, it was a biracial at the time, a seven-year-old child with several disabilities who returned to school after homeschooling due to COVID. And on her very first day back at school, classmates started to target her. They teased her about her tics because one of her disabilities was Tourette's. They told other kids not to be friends with her. They physically pushed her. They threatened to hit her. And when she finally responded to these physical acts of harassment, she was made to apologize for her behavior. They were not made to apologize to her. And the same students then began verbally harassing her about her hairstyle and about her smell. The school did not investigate this as harassing behavior. And when the mother insisted on an investigation, they told her, without having done an investigation, that if they were to open one, they would find that her daughter had by the one who retaliated and would be the one in trouble, not the other children. She felt so unsafe she could not return to her community school any longer. So the reason that I bring this story up is that the proposal you have in front of you would require schools and districts to consider the totality of circumstances as well as the totality of types of conduct the students have to endure, which would mean that just because initially she was teased for her tics and then was teased and harassed for her gender and then was harassed for her race, those would not be looked at separately. They would be looked at in the totality. And that would have given her a much higher chance of being protected from ongoing behavior before it got to the place where she felt she had no choice left to but to respond. The word that's currently required in statute is that in order for something to be harassment in school, it has to be substantially undermining access to education. We have another client who asked me to not share her name but did ask me to share her story. So I'll call her Julie but not her real name, who came to us at the end of her freshman year of high school, although her story began long before that. She'd been on an IEP since the age of four. But her disability really hadn't been understood for many years. And one of the things that we didn't learn until the disability law project got involved was that she had a delay in her processing speed. And what she had done as a way of compensating for this was a skill that many girls with disabilities learned called masking. So it wasn't always evident when she was confused or didn't understand what was going on around her socially. And because of this, the harassment that she experienced really was having a very severe impact on her mental health. But she wasn't showing that to the adults in the building. She didn't have any of what we might call externalizing behaviors. But on the inside, she was living in terror of one mean aggressor as well as another ring of students around that one. She was followed. She was threatened. She was physically assaulted. She was verbally harassed. She was called a skank and a whore by the other kids. But this, again, was now perceived to be substantially undermining her access to education because she kept coming to school. And she masked her fear by smiling and laughing in reaction to harassment. And she was also perceived by school staff as participating in her own harassment when, in fact, because of her disability, she just did not understand what was happening or how to cope. Her mother reported this problem to the school over and over. Phone calls went unanswered. Emails were ignored. And finally, an incident took place where the student I'm calling, Julie, responded not with a laugh and a smile, but with a physical response. The parent of the other student demanded an investigation. And one was opened immediately. An independent investigator came in. Finally, students were interviewed. I just want to interrupt just for a second because we have a question that's relevant right now. Please go ahead, Senator. Hi, Rachel. Senator Gulick. Hi, Senator. I can't see you. But just a question, do you know why? Did you ever find out why that students, the emails and the letters and the complaints weren't being addressed by the school? Did you ever find out why? We received a full copy of the record in the case. But none of it explained why the district had chosen to not respond to those emails. But we did determine in the record that they had received the emails and they had records of the phone calls. And do you know how many years ago that was? Or how recent that was? So this took place in, let's see, it must have started. We must have started with her in the 2020, 2021 school year. And so this took place the year before that. But by the time we started with this student, they were not in school. They had been so terrified by the school that the family decided to work on a flexible pathway. They presented it to the school. The school did not respond or assure that any quiet credit would be received for that plan. They made no plan to safely return the student to school. And the student actually lived so near the school that she was afraid to take walks in her neighborhood because just seeing the building was putting her in a state of terror. I'm just asking, because I'm curious about the time. So 2019, 2020, was part of that year remote? Do you know? The very last part of that year would have been remote. Because the pandemic started in March 2020. Okay, thank you. Yeah. So we were ultimately able to move this student to a different school in a different district. And that was really the only solution that was gonna work for her disability and the entrenched trauma that the school building had caused her. And that really transformed her experience. And she actually was able to then graduate early from high school in that new setting. She shared with me to share with you all her comment, which is that over the years in her school district, there have been many more students than she could ever imagine feeling the same exact way she had, not just emotionally, but physically and mentally from being harassed, bullied and beat up, all these incidents put her through so much agony and in very difficult situations to the point even coping with it was so hard to find. She was so drained having to watch her back everywhere she went on a daily basis, hiding in the bathroom, eating lunch by herself, taking being sick just so she didn't have to go to school. She was always wondering who she was going to run into or get a message from next. Every single day questioning herself, what did I do to deserve any of this and why is this happening? We also have clients drop out of school completely because of harassment that has gone unaddressed because it has not reached that severe or pervasive standard. That's a loss to our state that we really cannot recover from for those children. The most recently available data from the US Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection is unfortunately quite old. It's from 2017. But in that year alone, there were 906 allegations of disability-based harassment, 1,208 allegations of harassment or bullying based on race, color, national origin, or religion. And for some reason, Vermont did not submit basis of sex data that year. So the most recent available on basis of sex is 2015, when there were 1,530 allegations of discrimination in our schools. These numbers are incredibly high given our school student population. And this is with the standard where it is. We have a problem with harassment and bullying in our schools. And we will not be able to prevent harassment and bullying if we say it's okay up to an incredibly high level and only then will we stop it. We need to stop harassment and bullying at the beginning. But I know there are concerns about unintended consequences of changing the standard. But I think these can be appropriately addressed through improved utilization of the MTSS system as special education and related services to ensure needs are being met to provide social skills instruction, development of resolution is spelled out in the PC skills. We can use the investments that you are, that the legislature is appropriating and mentoring programs and other programs that help children develop healthy peer relationships. We can finally require state provided or state approved training resources for the staff who are assigned to debt to investigate bullying and harassment. Right now the only requirement is that you designate staff. So there's no special requirement about what training they need to receive. Senator Gullit. Is there a way for us to provide the training and the resources and the staff without changing the standard? Or are the two coupled no matter what? I think if you change the standard you have a much higher incentive to make sure the training happens because I think a lot of our school districts including the ones that these children attended think they are doing it right and meeting the standard. And so if the standard changes that is an opportunity for education and for training. Could you change the requirements of the model policy and procedure to require training without changing the standard? You could, but I think our students would be better off if both changed. I think our students would also be better off with improved data collection and reporting systems with schools having ongoing technical assistance and coaching where we find unintended disproportionate impact on historically marginalized students. And really I think the core thing that we can improve regardless of whether you change the standard to address the problem of plastic bullying in our schools is differentiated response that focuses on education and restorative practices and positive behavior interventions and supports and safety planning. Which are all initiatives that you have supported over the last many years and asked schools to really stand up. And I think that is how we can work with students to prevent these behaviors and to stop these behaviors much earlier along the line than if we wait until they've gotten to the place where they are severe or pervasive before we step in. Thank you, Ms. Sealy. I think I have a divided committee on this. And I also need to move a bill. And if I two to two even makes zero in the legislature you can't advance something. It doesn't mean again that this would be the end of this conversation. The bill could always be amended as well as we know the house is sending something right back to Senate economic development. But I appreciate the testimony very, very much. I don't think we need to hear anything else at this point. Your colleagues, Sparks is not available right now. So if we chat a little bit more. Yeah, it's just one question. What was the mechanism for delivery a lot? It was email. Was it was a personal face to face? It was email, face to face. It was a mandate. So cell phones? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And I did just, the Senator Duelot just mentioned she's going to probably have somebody come in next week. So clearly it's not the end of the conversation. And but I do need to move something today. I understand. And I appreciate you're fitting me in, especially when I heard that you need to adjourn by four o'clock. So thank you for the time. I've always enjoyed coming and speaking with you. And again, sorry, I've been too good first. No problem. We appreciate your partnership. Thanks, Rachel. Okay, I think we're still 2-2 on this right now. Mr. Leonard, I think we're good with you. I appreciate you sticking around. I will. And then I think we'll move this bill without it in it since I think the committee is split. If that changes, if we get, I don't know if he's being here with me the difference, but I think we're 2-2 right now. So I think, I'm hoping still to move it. So Miss St. James, would you just take us through what we have? And then if somebody wants to make a motion, we can, this is the Miscellaneous Education Bill 3.14618, right? We've seen this multiple times. Yes. And I would say maybe tell us what, I mean, we're talking a million feet up with the overview. Thanks. St. James Office of Legislative Council, this is your strike all amendment to H461, which is the Miscellaneous Education Bill. Sections one, two, and three do away with the requirement that school districts join the shared school district data management system. So it suspends the implementation of that system. It doesn't require school districts to join it, but it does allow existing users to continue to use it. And that was part of the bill as passed by the House. Section four is an amendment to the Vermont National Guard tuition benefit program. It adds a benefit for out of allowing the benefit to be used in a non-Vermont approved post-secondary education institution if the degree program is not available in Vermont. That was language included in the housecast version. The home, section five is the changes to a home studies statute. We've been over this quite a bit. The big changes are doing away with the hearing process or option. And there were some other smaller, but still stuff, some tip changes. Senator Campion, did you get my email? I did. Okay. So there's been no changes. Yeah, there've been no changes. Okay. Yeah, thank you. And that, if we leave the overview of the home study changes at that, we're gonna jump to page 13, section six. This is an amendment to the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group. I also noticed the act one working group. The house made two changes and you were making one change to this section. The house changes were on page 14, lines three and nine, pushing out two deliverable dates. One, the working group's review of standards for student performance and recommendations. The state board is moving from December 31st of last year to June 30th of this year. And the state board's obligation to consider adopting ethnic and social equity studies standards is moving from December 31st of last year to December 31st of this year. You all on page 12, line 19, well, 18 and 19, have also pushed the working group's life span out from July 1, 2023 to September 1, 2023. Any questions on that? Okay, section seven. So now we're gonna get everything from here on out is language you all have added. Page 14, line 14, section seven is the creation of the act one technical advisory work group. This is essentially a continuation of a subset of the act one work group. That would spring to life after the act one work group, act one working group no longer ceases to exist. This technical advisory working group would become effective. It's no longer ceases to exist. When the act one, when the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group ceases to exist, this new technical advisory group would exist, would be become effective. And they are made up of a subset of the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group as they existed on their last day of existence to August 31st, 2023. And their reason for being is to provide ongoing assistance to everyone that the ethnic and social equity standards working group has provided recommendations to. And there, they would cease to exist on January 31st, 2024. Section eight is on page 17, line 18. This is the regional student driver ed pilot program. Do we need to walk through this? This is- This is neculic. I mean, I think we're good on this one. We're more than- I think we're good. Yep, it's a pilot for one year, correct? Kind of, it's a, so there's no sunset language in here. It is requiring AOE and the department of motor vehicles to come up with a program before the summer 15th of this year, but then the clinics with the students behind the wheels would be next summer, July 2024. And then you have report back requirements with recommendations on whether or not to continue the program. And we'll give you an outline of this for the floor and I'll help you in any way you want. I've already done a section by section on this. So, that's a question of weird. Thank you. There is an appropriation in this section. I just want to flag that. Yeah, so it's going to spill a little bit slowly. And it's coming from the ed fund. Yeah. Can I just share one- So just saying that you don't have to work on this this weekend. Please go ahead. I just wanted, can I share with my committee one thing that I've heard- Yeah. of driver's ed recently, which was from someone a constituent got in touch with them and said that he is not in favor of this because at least in his mind it is a program that is simply for the convenience of parents. That's how it was worded and sent back to me. So I just wanted to share that with folks. Convenience. Of the parents. So, I just wanted to- I would need more info. Yeah. All I can think of is it's because they get their driving tests, they get their driving done in a more concentrated fashion and more quickly. That's all I can think of. Well, I mean, that person wants to email me one thing. I'm happy to write back and say is, this has, that was not the priority. For sure, the priority was the lack of driver's education that's happening in the state and the need to get kids educated. Agency of Education, Lindsay, do you want to add anything to that? I don't think so. Thank you. I mean, that's the first time I've heard of that kind of idea. So if the person wants to email me directly or email anyone, I can see you tapping the table so he's getting ready. I'll get the info, thank you. I will just say that the last language you all had before Cross-Ukrainian did have a rule suspension in there that would have allowed students to be behind the wheel in longer chunks of time than currently required. That has been removed from this section to the extent that that is the draft that your constituent was looking at. That's no longer, it's all the current driver's ed rules. They applied. Thanks for underlining that. And I would say, Lindsay, if you want to work whoever the driver's ed person is, could also be helpful in responding to Senator Hewlett's friend's constituent. Thank you. We're on page 19, section nine, line five and six. This is the line we walked through yesterday related to Union School District Board member nominating petitions. It changes the number of signatures required to get on a nominating petition to be on the ballot to get a seat on a Union District School Board from 30 voters, from 60 to 30 voters or 1% of the legal voters residing in the district or the proposed district, depending on when the vote happens, for both unified Union School Districts and Union Elementary and Union High School Districts in the at-large representation model and the modified at-large representation models. And that's sections nine, 10 and 11. Do you want to walk through that any more closely than we did yesterday? I'll come to you if I need more guidance. How's that? I'm here, okay. Great. And again, this is going to approach, and because it's the fund of a private or finance. It's all about transportation. Yeah. The last section is the effective date section, section 12 on page 24, the very bottom of line 19. So the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group and the effective date section will take effect on passage because you're extending dates that would expire before July 1, 2023. So you're going to want those sections to take effect on passage. The technical advisory group, that new group, does not take effect until September 1, and then everything else in the bill would take effect on July 1, 2020. Any questions, committee? Yeah, please. Are we still able to take an official vote on the draft language to amend the harassment statutes? Sure, we could do like a straw poll. Is that okay? I mean, whatever's on the record, I mean, that's... Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I can't make a motion. I'll make a motion. Okay, so you are recommending that we include the harassment language draft, read the number for me. 1.1. 1.1 into this bill. All those in favor? All opposed? I can give an explanation if anyone wants to hear it or if not, I can do that some other time. Please feel free to say, you've been helped, I mean, please feel free to. Yeah, I mean, I voted no on this, and I said, you've heard me say this before, I'll say it again. I spoke with leadership in my district and for, you could say this is true or not true, but the fact is more by-pot kids are engaged in harassment in my district than non-by-pot kids. So I'm concerned that this will negatively impact kids who are already living in our most vulnerable communities in my, again, in my district. I'm also worried that it's gonna have unintended consequences on the very institutions that we look to to raise folks out of poverty, which is our education system. So those are my two, that's where I am now. Why did I change in the future? Absolutely, I'm open to learning, but that's with the information I have now, that's where I stand and that's my comment. I mean, I'll just say that I think the challenge that I'm faced with is, you know, we talk about addressing discrimination in other bills and we have the Office of Racial Equity that whose job it is to propose to us language that addresses discrimination. It's an office that has attorneys and hard workers who put this language together and they present it to us and for us to address these issues of discrimination. And I defer to their experience, knowledge and judgment when it comes to these things. This is an issue that's really important to my constituents, also myself personally, so disappointed to not see it in the bill. So Senator Gulick did offer to bring in her some school leadership next week, since we do have probably at least a week, honestly, before this makes it to the floor. Give my word, and I appreciate Senator Gulick's offer to have her district dialogue a little bit with us to see if we might be able to get to a different place on it. And it sounds like you're open to that conversation. I know Senator Williams is open to that conversation. Yeah, and I just have to say I also talked with Rachel yesterday about possibly changing or editing, making some changes to the language and just thinking of other solutions that might be available, so. So I hope we can have your support to move the bill. Yeah. But, and I appreciate Senator Gulick's offer to bring Sparks in next week also and we'll continue to have the conversation and some other people, yeah. So with that, if somebody wants to make a motion to move to draft 3.1, it would be welcomed at this point. Make the motion to... Sorry. Okay. So the motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Senator Gulick. Yes. Senator Hachin. Yes. Senator Williams. Yes, Senator Campion. Yes. And we have one absent, so 4-0-1. Thank you, Senator Gulick, for reporting it. And again, you probably don't have to do it. You could start your floor speech. You're not gonna have a floor, you're gonna have floor speech probably at the same time. We're gonna do miscellaneous school meals and school safety and a bunch of things. When do you think that will be? Not next week, but the new chapter? Meals? Yeah. I mean, all of these. I think it's gonna all be in those final negotiations between that Approach Committee and I think this could be up before, this could be up later at the end of next week. Oh, the end of next week, all right. Yeah. Wow. That's awesome. Well, let's put it this way. It's, yeah, maybe the end of next week. Okay, great. Great. Thanks, everybody.