Is that a window above the chair? Or is that a painting? It's a window in the back of the room and I just put a poster of my favorite painting in it. And I think you're the first to notice, Phil. Good job. I was like, it's kind of like a window, but kind of like a painting. Yeah. He's even checking out your stuffed animals in the chair I heard.  Yeah, that's a big thing with middle schoolers. My son did that the whole time. He'd pin videos and do screenshots and like check out people's houses. It's a little creepy. I don't know if Tim has emailed you guys any of this, but there's a guy on Twitter who, his whole shtick is, he takes screenshots of people's bookshelves and then he critiques them in this incredibly analytical way about the aesthetics and the books.  They probably didn't read those three books. And it's really elaborate, but. Yeah, that's why I have no books behind me. No books. No books. So welcome, everybody. Tuesday, June 16th, Senate Education Remote Hearing. And we're joined today by the Secretary of Education, Dan French, for an update on school reopening. This was encouraged by the administration the day you did your press conference that we hear from you. So we've scheduled as much time as you like, Secretary French, but I remember your last presentation, there were a sequence of options that you were considering, but there wasn't a lot of detail yet. So whatever you can offer it by way of detail would be much appreciated. Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you an update. Dan French, Secretary of Education. The cornerstone of our reopening plans are the guidance, is the guidance that we'll be releasing this week, jointly with Department of Health on the, basically the public health guidance. That'll be the cornerstone of our planning that we undertake. That guidance is fairly comprehensive. It's gonna be over 25 pages, very specific. And we found certainly the CDC has produced some fairly general guidance, I would say, what we'd call considerations for schools. But like many states, we've had to work to translate that into a very specific guidance for the field. We have a group that's been working on that led by the Department of Health includes the various education stakeholder groups augmented by the School Nurses Association and several members of the Vermont, larger Vermont medical community, including folks from Median Medical Center, pediatricians and so forth. So it's been a, I would say a very intensive sort of sprint if you will to produce the guidance, but I'm pleased with this quality and hopefully we'll have that out probably tomorrow, if not Thursday. So, and that guidance covers the wide range of activities from hygiene to say distancing in the classroom and so forth. And I expect this will be, I say the quarter stone of our planning efforts, there's this will precipitate the need for other planning and guidance that will not out emerge as the field responds to this initial guidance. We are already spitting up a group on applying this guidance to a specific situation for special needs students. So that would be a separate sort of sub-guidance if you will in the same container or theme of public health guidance. We also know continuity of learning will be necessary in the fall. So districts will be asked to indulge and continue to improve on their efforts to provide remote learning to students. And then we have a couple other sub-containers that are basically based on the national models that emerge that we have some guides that will be producing for school boards on issues relative to policy procedure, administrative procedures in particular, funding considerations of the local level, how to align their funding strategies. And we also know, I think there's going to be a whole bunch of guidance relative to social emotional supports for students and families. So I think the containers are shaping up in terms of the larger guidance that we're producing but it's important that we get this health guidance out first. We're also contemplating a fairly, I think significant communication strategy to engage with the broader Vermont community about the guidance because I think it's going to require a partnership with parents, families and so forth. I will say we're also keeping an eye on what will no doubt be the financial needs for districts to implement the guidance as they get ready for the fall. So we would be happy to talk with you a little bit about that today as well. And also keeping an eye on any regulatory or statutory changes, modifications and so forth that might be of interest to set up a good launch in the fall. In particular issues surrounding attendance and school calendar are ones we're surfacing pretty early in our conversations. Why don't I stop there and I'll be happy to delve into any of these topics in more detail. Okay. So I can't remember if it was exactly your presentation or if I'm adding in presentations I've heard from other districts but it seemed to me that there were three basic approaches. One was all remote, one was a hybrid system and one was having all the kids back in. Am I right that your guidelines would allow districts to move between those three? And so what you would be doing in effect is providing them ways that they might individually at any given time be satisfying the guidelines whether they're in one, two or three mode. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that was one of the primary lenses we were looking as we were starting to admire this planning process and the various complex elements involved. We decided however to really have a simplicity even though I will argue it's 25 pages of simplicity to start with the public health considerations for opening school is sort of the beginning because I think from there we'll start to precipitate every other aspect including what I'd call the instructional dispositions that schools should be ready to embark upon including as you mentioned in-person instruction on the other end to continue remote learning and then what we call something like hybrid learning which might be a case where a district would be doing both in-person instruction and remote learning simultaneously but we are not directing anything on that yet we're trying to get the public health guidance out first but these issues particularly as I mentioned relative to attendance and continuity learning will come into play in exactly those kinds of scenarios. So we have to prepare for all those things and I think it's precisely that sort of moving among the dispositions that's probably gonna be the most challenging piece of this planning. School districts would prefer to operate one way or the other but how we navigate those changes is gonna be the most complex thing. So what I anticipate doing next in terms of our planning process you know, as I mentioned there's gonna be a separate task force on students with special needs we have some work going on at pre-K those things are all I would think fairly predictable and basically embellishment of this cornerstone guidance that we'll produce this week but I think the area that your question sort of eludes to Senator, it gets right to this issue of decision-making about, you know we're talking about in our health guidance basically three steps or levels. Step one is when all schools are closed and they're doing remote learning. Step two is when we're doing in-person instruction with fairly restrictive health precautions and step three is when we're doing in-person instruction with limited health precautions meaning we have very good suppression rate of the virus and so forth. So that language which is in the health guidance has to be translated into instructional guidance and I think how we start to do that is getting clear about the decision-making authority over those issues. So whose decision is it going to be to move from step one to step two? What are those criteria that are gonna be used to inform that decision and when will those decisions be made and communicated? So I think that next piece in particular which most of the national guidance sort of stays away from because it talks about considerations that basically leave local decision-makers to figure these things out. We're trying to work with all our partners to at least get some clarity about how these decisions will be made and communicated because I think precisely as we start to make transitions and among these dispositions that we're really gonna have to have a clear approach on the one hand to bounce what'll be the need for local responsiveness. On the other hand to maintain the discipline that's been so successful for us as a state to ensure that we have a uniform or consistent approach to the social mitigation strategy of closing schools. So I think that decision-making piece which will come next is gonna really start to unpack a lot of these other issues. Of course, we'll run pretty quickly into time. We have limited amount of time to do the planning. So that's also an important consideration. I think I still reflect talking with my peers in New England. Vermont's bought a certain amount of time, a luxury of time to do this planning because of our disciplined approach. Many of my other peers are right in the crucible of still trying to get out of certain phase of their responsive virus. We've bought ourselves some time to actually do the planning but it's not a lot of time and districts are gonna need to turn into the specific application of the planning on or before August 1st. So we're gonna have to move pretty quickly to frame this stuff out. So I'm not talking about a lengthy, deliberative process, but one that can be as inclusive as possible to produce some guidance that'll be useful. And then one last question. So the governor under executive order closed the schools all at once is a very basic question. Is it your sense now that the intention will be to open all the schools at once, have all the kids go back and then judging on how well things work, how the infection rates go, schools would try to stay open at that level or have you not even decided that piece yet? Yeah, I think my understanding, the governor also revised or amended or issued a new emergency order yesterday, updated it through July 15. And in that, my understanding is he's delegated authority to me to basically reopen all the schools on mass. So I think that piece is clear to me. I think what'll be coming in our health guidance is a recommendation to put all schools into a disposition of that step two, which is yes, we're open, but we're gonna take the most cautionary disposition possible with the most restrictive health measures possible to, because just the fact of turning schools on, it's not just kids in the school, it's all the other social behaviors and interactions that turning on schools promotes in communities. So I think that's step one is to open schools in the most restrictive disposition possible in terms of public health precautions to then see if there's a response in a virus and then to go to step three, which is the idea that we have the least protective precautions inside school, kids moving around inside the school building a lot more. And I think, to your observation though, I would say, yes, the goal here is maintenance of operations for in-person instruction. That's really the target. So this emerges as a theme in the CDC guidance. It's not so much opening schools, it's about how to maintain them in in-person instruction. So we have to not only ramp up to do it, but also ramp up to maintain it, which is like a continuous operations. And that perspective informs a lot of what you'll see the guidance coming up this week. It's like, how do we maintain that operation in full anticipation that some schools might be closed, reopened, students are gonna get sick, staff will get sick. How do we manage ourselves through that process? Okay, very good. Thank you. Committee members, questions for the secretary? Senator Ingram. Thank you. So do you consider the agency's role in issuing the guidance? And it sounds like perhaps the principals or superintendents can make decisions on the ground as conditions warrant. Is that sort of the way you're looking at it? We're gonna have to figure that out. I guess basically, Senator, we have what we, what the CDC would term reactive school closure, meaning individual schools closing or staying open relative to conditions. We did some of that at the beginning part of the response. If you remember back in March, before we had community spread, essentially, where we were in a containment mode, as cases, potential cases emerge, schools would shut down, disinfect, possibly reopen and so forth. We've gone through this broader social mitigation phase. Now we're back to containment. Of course, the difference now is we have, I would say the surveillance, we have the testing and the contact tracing available to give us some confidence in doing the containment now. But to what extent, how those decisions get made, we know certainly there'll be consultation with Department of Health and so forth. We have also, I think, clarified the role of local health officers who report essentially to the Department of Health. So I think what we need to do from a, I would say from my experience working in Vermont communities is we just need to bring everyone along with us in terms of how we do this because I think, yes, on the one hand, there's going to need to be a response into local conditions and what I mean by that is that a school could be shut down for sickness of staff as just as quick as illness in the community. I mean, there just could be a few, not enough people to run a school or a lack of bus drivers or what have you. There's so many vulnerable points in certain of the logistics of running a school that could shut down a school for any situation. So we need to prepare for those while at the same time maintaining our ability to do remote learning. So keep that momentum going and also understand when will those conditions be safe to reopen. So I think those things we want to explore a little bit more clearly this time around. I think they were haphazard at best at the beginning part of this response. All we had really was old CDC guidance from H1N1 on how to do reactive school closure. Is it necessarily applicable to the situation? And it's, I think from my perspective, but I think a lot about this discipline we've maintained as a state that's so important for us to get to be able to return to normalcy. So I don't want to lose that. So I think there is a balance we're going to have to negotiate once again between the ability to be responsive because I think those things are going to emerge. And I'm not convinced those decisions can be made well at the state level in a timely way. On the other hand, we need to ensure that there's a consistent approach to our intervention against the virus so that we don't have hot spots that are only emerging around the state. Okay, other questions for Secretary French? Senator Hardy. Thank you. And thanks for that update, Secretary French. You may know that this morning we, or this whatever, midday, we went through our budget proposal, our first quarter budget. And it includes a significant chunk of the CRF money for K-12. And a lot of it is $41 million of it is not really defined. It sort of puts it into your hands. And I'm just curious, I guess for my own comfort, I'd rather see it a little bit more defined. And that's something I will talk to the committee about today. But what are your plans for that money and how might we define it a little bit more to make sure that it's going to allowable uses and preparation for the fall? Yeah, thank you. I think it's a complex issue to navigate because we also have the ESSER funds involved. But I think it also, once again, becomes fairly simple when we consider the priorities. I think I can go through these things in more detail, but I would say from immediate need, we're gonna have to get money into the system to feed kids sooner rather than later. That's emerging as a very important consideration. So that's very concrete. We've been running our student meal programs, basically uninterrupted since the beginning of the response. The programs that were not designed to be run that way. There's a lot of wear and tear on, let's say, on the people, on the processes, on the logistics, on the transportation. Those programs need to be shut down periodically in the summer to clean, to restart and so forth. When districts don't feel confident that they're gonna have the money to do this, they're falling back in a more conservative disposition to do what they wanna do. So I think we've gotta inject some money into that immediately. I think as the health guidance comes out, that will then inform the reopening costs, if you will, for physical plant in particular. So I think issues around conditioning, nurses' spaces in particular will emerge. We need to have basically an isolation space for school nurses to put students who might have COVID-like symptoms. They can't be in the nursing office at the same time. So to provision those kinds of structures, possibly do some other configuration of classrooms, temporary gym, use of gyms, things like that. So those things will emerge from the guidance. In there will also be HVAC. I know you've been discussing HVAC. HVAC is on a list of things along those lines. So I think there's some reopening costs, but then, so I would, I'm just trying to rank these by priority a little bit. Feeding kids immediate need, conditioning facilities. And then we have a strategy, I think, around trying to address the deficit in the Ed fund. We have the ability with CRF due to its, both say less flexibility, but narrow focus, but also its shorter timeframe that sort of begs the question, what can we do with it now? Because ESSER can be used for a longer period of time. And the one strategy we identified, which is I think Brad James qualified about $16 million, is the ability to reimburse districts for the mandatory staffing costs. They've utilized in fiscal year 20, as much as fiscal year 21. So as you know, we've required districts to maintain payroll. We think those costs could be qualified for CRF in fiscal year 20. We don't, you know, we just did an extrapolation of our modeling and works out to about $16 million. If that's true, that would allow districts to generate surplus in 21, which could mean we could, I would say, claw back an ed payment around that same amount, which could help take some pressure off the deficit. So I think, you know, my priority would be to feed the kids, provision the spaces, and then see if we could do something on the Ed fund issue. Okay, go ahead Ruth. Just follow up on that. Thank you, that's really helpful. In terms of the feeding the kids, that is something that the Senate Education or Senate Agriculture Committee has discussed. And I've also brought it up here in the Senate Education Committee. I believe that we're hoping to have a package of sort of food security and at least address it for summer meals and potentially into the fall. So was that something you were planning on using that 50 million for? Or is that a separate thing? So that's one of my questions. And then the second thing is one thing I didn't hear you mention, and this is sort of something that was brought up earlier was professional development for teachers, both in how to teach and work in this new world of COVID education, but and also professional development around delivering remote learning. I know they took a sort of crash course in how to do it. Yeah. But they did a fabulous job. I mean, no complaints, but obviously we can always do better. And I think if there are plans and training ahead of time for how to deliver remote learning, it will be a lot more substantive and robust in the fall and the year. And we know that we'll probably have periods where there's gonna have to be remote learning at least on some level. So I'm wondering if you could address that. And then I can't remember the last one. So just those two things, I guess. Yeah, so your first question, yes. I would use CRF funds to feed students and that would include transportation costs. You know, we've had to, and to the larger issue of food security, the school infrastructure has been used in a broader social way to address this issue. And it's important from a logistics standpoint. We basically have, I'm gonna say boots on the ground from a military perspective, but we have the infrastructure to do this. It's a critical piece of the infrastructure. That infrastructure is in a state of shutting down right now if we don't inject some cash into it. So absolutely. And I think that's also lines well with the CRF use. In terms of professional development, I wouldn't necessarily target CRF for that because I think districts firstly, ESSER funds would be at a very appropriate use of that. They also have the cash on hand this summer anyway through their title grants. And there's usually pretty significant carryover in those grants on an annual basis. This would be their title one and so forth, IDA B funds. So they have, I think in terms of the summer, significant resources available to stage professional development and training. I don't see that as something that's necessarily a cash flow issue right now. But I think also relative to how CRF is you qualified, CRF really, you have to make a connection between COVID sort of you've been impacted negatively by COVID and therefore you're using these funds in this way. So I think when I think about CRF versus ESSER, I think of CRF in terms of reimbursement for expenses. Okay, we've got to feed kids. We've got to build some things. Those are costs above and beyond. I think it becomes a little squishier on professional development. And I think ESSER on the other hand is clearly open for professional development and basically any federal education program. So those funds are gonna hang around a little longer for them and they provide greater flexibility. And so in my own mind, I've been separating out sort of CRF or reimbursement kind of expenses with operations and ESSER for the education professional development piece. So Secretary French, I just wanted to ask, it's our understanding that districts were told they were given a line that they could charge expenses on and guidelines about what would qualify and what wouldn't. And I imagine this chunk of funding that we're talking about operating in the same way how has that worked? The process whereby the districts themselves are figuring out on the fly, how to charge that? Are you seeing that by and large people are within the guidelines and there's not a lot of worry about people exceeding the guidelines? Yeah, I think it's too early to tell actually because we haven't reimbursed them for anything. You know, we started out pretty early in the process of saying, hey, code everything. Just code everything. We don't know, because we're still talking with FEMA and things like that. We don't know code everything and then we'll go from there. So we haven't, unfortunately, we haven't put any money out into the system yet. We have the promise of money, but then as we got a clear sense of how CARES Act, including ESSER, GEAR and CRF could be utilized, we also started to understand our revenue shortfall, the ed fund and so forth. So, you know, the legislature asked me to withhold the application for ESSER, for example, until the broader implications of ed funding could be understood. So districts, we've been telling them the code, they've been coding, we're telling them they're entitled to ESSER, but we're also telling them there might be a clawback coming. We're telling them there's CRF coming out the door for immediate things, but no money has come.  So, but they've been on the hook in delivering services. And I think certainly coming into the end of this fiscal year, which ends in two weeks, some districts won't necessarily be in a bad position financially because they've also been able to shut down transportation and so forth. So every time we've pulled sort of the business managers on where are you at, it's always been like, well, we're doing all right. You know, some districts have seen significant, I would say deficit in like a food program, but they've been able to, you know, gain that back in some other area of their operation. So I'm not expecting districts necessarily to end the fiscal year in a different place, but it's just all the uncertainty that I see manifest particularly in the issue of summer programming when we started to produce guidance for folks that said, hey, you can offer summer programming, you can feed schools this summer or kids this summer. A lot of people just didn't want to go into that with a sense of confidence because they were uncertain of their financial picture. You know, they just, they know these things are looming on the horizon and they're not certainly not sure what next fiscal year will look like at all. So there's, I think there's a need now to put some of this money in play for people so we can just start attacking some of the issues that are just, I mean, from a real practical standpoint from our perspective, you know, we're gonna need to open schools and we'll worry about how to pay for it later on. And we need to put some money in the system and how to get that work started. But obviously there's gonna be long-term fiscal implications for the COVID response and that's not gonna be resolved in this fiscal year and next one will probably be several years. Okay, other questions for the secretary? Well, thank you so much, Secretary French. I appreciate you keeping us up to date. And, you know, as you develop more detail, we're only gonna be here for another, hopefully week and a half and then we'll be going on break. But you can always reach us by email, even on the break. And then when we come back, maybe we'll check in with you first thing. Sounds good. Thank you. All right, have a good afternoon. Okay. Okay, committee, if you look on the agenda, you'll see we have three main things that we set out to do today. I'm not sure how much discussion we'll do on each one. But I wanted to open discussion on all of them. And the first one goes back to the HVAC discussion we had last time. So the very last thing we did was to give Becky Wasserman a little bit of direction on the HVAC program and the definition of the schools that were eligible. So my memory of it was that we had said approved independence would be eligible along with public schools. And so the draft reflects that. But I know I had email from Ruth saying that that wasn't her sense of the conversation. So I just wanted to make sure that we didn't leave that the draft right now says if students are tuition publicly into your district, you qualify for the HVAC work. So Ruth, do you wanna pick up there? Yeah, thanks. My impression from our conversation last week was that what we were talking about were the four academies or whatever they're called and that for St. Jay, St. Albans and man, I can't remember where the fourth one is. So that we were just thinking about those four high schools as potentially eligible but not all of the many little tiny private schools that may have tuition students. That was what I took from our conversation. And so I was just concerned that given the state of our public school buildings and the huge need that we know that we have for facilities that we're opening it up too broadly to other types of institutions. And I can see where confusion might come in because we do sometimes talk about the traditional academies and public schools and then independent schools over here. In this case, I looked at it the way we looked at the lead bill, which was public health issue, we're trying as quickly as possible before December to reach as many Vermont schools as possible because in a public health pandemic, we're all in it together in a biological way. So I was able to check in with some other people who seemed to have assumed in that conversation we were talking about the broader category of approved independence. But so I guess what I'm saying is I would personally I would prefer that it reached those approved independence to which we publicly tuition kids because in their communities, they're liable to spread virus just like anybody else. But this would leave out independence who are not approved for public dollars. So thoughts on that from anybody? Yeah, Andy. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I had the same impression as you, Senator Bruce that it was not the same as the lead because that included everybody in all the day that cares about you, but that it was all the approved independent schools that have public dollars students flowing to them is how I thought of it in my mind. The other thing I'll say. If you look at the language that's right now in the Q1 budget that came over from the house, they've conditioned the 1.5, first of all, they've set a cap of 1.5 million for expenses for approved independence, which is proportionate to their number of students. And they've set an individual cap of $400 something per student. That strikes me as way more work than necessary, but I told Representative Webb, I was okay with going along with that on that money if she and her committee would go along with having the HVAC program be broadly available to approved independence. In other words, the house committee has generally not wanted to spend money on approved independence and the Senate committee traditionally has argued that if public money flows there, we should treat them more or less equitably. So the way it's set up now, the HVAC program is not conditioned, the other money is, and that's a kind of balancing act that I think she and I felt like we could live with. So Ruth, it sounds like what the house has done on that other money would be more in line with what you're thinking. What other money? You mean the 1.5 million? Yes. Yeah, I mean, I did notice that in the budget last night when I was going through the budget and that is for approved independence, correct? The 1.5 million, in its word, yeah. Do you know how many approved independence schools there are, Phil? Oh, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Jim, no, he's on the same. But the number of students is quite small. It's a couple of thousand. I don't know the answer to hardly, but that figure came from Brad James who had divided the number of students by the number of schools. So he has all the information really at the hand. Okay, I mean, in the whatever the word is, as you know, when this has come up before, I have some discomfort with everybody's moving, with spending, including them in all of the programs that we create. However, in this effort to move this along, I'm happy to go with whatever the committee. I also just wanna note that when we talk about higher education, I hope that you'll remember this conversation because I'd like to make a similar argument for higher education. So just note this, that I am happy to go along with the majority of the committee on this and make it allowable for approved independence, assuming that most of it will go to our public schools who are in desperate need of this type of work. Okay, so unless anybody else registers an objection, the draft of the Q1 budget now reflects the last draft that Becky produced for us, which has approved independence in public schools, which I think Ruth was saying she could go along with reluctantly, but could go along with it. Andy? I just wanna say that I did receive a couple edits from the Department of Public Service or suggested edits when they looked at it and they had one, and I sent those to Becky, I sent them to the committee, I don't know if people looked at it, but. I took a quick look. They thought it was important to reference the statute that regulates efficiency Vermont. So that's in there, and then just a couple other, adding to the report that efficiency Vermont does to include the efficiency work that they do, just so it's clear. So Jeannie did quick work and put it up on the website and I did email it out. I saw it and it looked, you know, there's sort of technical clarifications. So I think that's fine. The bigger question is how best to get them into what's now on the calendar. Becky did send it over to Stephanie in appropriate. Oh, okay. Becky, can you join us for a second? Hey. Yeah, so I've been coordinating with JFO. So they have the edited version of the amendment now. So I can, I guess I can just follow up with them on what the next steps are, but I think that they had a couple of technical amendments. So I don't know if they're just gonna add it into what another amendment that they are already working on for the Q1 bill or if you would like to do this separately. Oh, it could be part of their amendment. No problem. Aren't we are doing an amendment, Phil? The one that you sent out yesterday could we add it to that? Well, we could. I suppose that's a different topic, but if it's easier to have them amend the HVAC language, let's do that. And that way our amendment will be limited to the higher ed piece, especially since Stephanie already has it. Is that right, Becky? Yeah, she already has it. So let me just contact her right now just to confirm that it can go that route where they just add it into the amendment that they're already working on. I know that they have it and I think that they looked at it, the committee looked at it. So I can just email you all back and let you know if there's a problem with that approach. Okay, sounds good. Okay, so one down. So now select committee on higher education. So I sent everybody, both the houses language, which is a select committee on higher education writ large in the state. And then I sent a rewrite and just a quick history on that rewrite. So you remember when the state colleges issue sort of spilled out, there was a general commitment from the appropriations chair and the pro tem to end the speaker to come up with bridge funding. And then there was a consultant hired whose report just came out. And the report basically said that if anything, Jeb Spalding's estimate was perhaps a little too low for the bridge funding that it might in fact be higher. So rather than 25, he thought that is the consultant thought that 30 million made sense as a set aside for bridge funding for one year. So JFO had been taking the lead on what was happening with the state colleges, but I was checking in with them. Then the house committee came forward with the language that they sent over, I believe in the yield bill. Isn't that right, Jim? I think so. Or was it in their Q1 budget? You're muted, Jim. Who is H961? Oh, okay. The yield bill. So when Senator Kitchell, Senator Ash, and I looked at that draft, we all had kind of the same reaction, which was we thought it was very, very large and that the charge that it laid out was also extremely broad. And the timeline, if you remember from what the speaker and the pro tem have said is that they want to begin giving answers to the VSC system, its faculty, its students, the communities involved by December. Not to say that the entire thing will be gamed out by December, but that we should begin projecting a certain direction by Christmas. So as I looked at the house's language, it seemed to me more the sort of thing that I would expect of a multiple year effort. So in other words, if you're gonna address all of higher ed, you have independent colleges, you have big colleges like Middlebury, UVM, St. Mike's, and you have then the state college system. They also, for good reason, I think, have the business community represented, labor from the administration, BSAC. So it was a very far-ranging thing. And so I worked on a draft that reduced the number of members and reduced the scope of the charge to center it around Vermont state colleges, but with reference to other pieces of the Vermont system as they dovetail with the Vermont state college immediate problem. So in other words, the business community is still there as is UVM, but they're there pretty much to discuss how we might think about restructuring our system of state colleges to more take advantage of those opportunities, those partnerships, those collaborations. So I'll finish by saying this was not an attempt to say we should never take a completely broad brush look at higher ed, but that given the time constraints of the VSC system, which if you think about it from the point of view of somebody who might be going, thinking about going to NVU, the last thing they heard was that NVU might be closed down. And so until there's an announcement of some kind about what will happen, there is uncertainty about what might happen. And that is gonna be a continuing drag on enrollment, which is a tiger eating its own tail. So with that, I'll open it up to comments about the draft, questions about the draft. The only final thing I'll say is that the timing on this is that I've agreed with Senator Kitchell that we'll have an amendment to offer on Thursday and it will replace whatever we do, we'll go into the reserved section of our bill and we'll replace the house language that was going to build it. So with that said, Senator Riegel. Yeah, I like the Senate version, the version you worked on, Senator Brief. I think we do need to focus on the immediate problem. And I was a little concerned thinking that the relationship between UVM and VSC should be explored a little bit, but you do actually have language when I read it more carefully, which asks for that to be taken into consideration. So I think that's important. And I also think another thing I really like about this version is that the Secretary of Education is not included. I mean, the Secretary of Education has got way too much on display right now, I think anyway, I don't think he needs to be involved in this as well. So yeah, so I prefer this version. Okay. Other comments, questions? Senator Perchley. There was a reference in here to a consultant of the steering. I think, can you just explain? Sure. So the other thing I would say is that I'm very aware of the timing and the need to agree with the house. And so if you look at the two versions together, I've, I've borrowed very, very extensively from their draft. So whatever I felt like we could keep is, is verbatim from their draft. And so the consultant piece is their language. And so what it says is that the steering group of this select committee will work with a consultant to develop these plans that we're talking about on the timeline that we're talking about the funding for that would come out of the bridge funding to the state colleges. So in what Jane described today, if you remember the little grid, there was bridge funding to the state colleges and this money that the consultant would come out of that money. So it wouldn't be an additional expense over the bridge funding. It would be part of it. And the consultant, we would be selecting in conjunction with Neby, the New England board of higher education. They helped the house develop their language. Another reason why I wanted to preserve as much of their structure, governance, et cetera, as possible. But the consultant, I think is a really big deal because you need somebody with expertise who can present this group with workable actionable ideas relatively quickly. They would be working for the steering committee, the consultant basically for the whole committee, but the steering committee would be the liaison to that council. Okay. Thanks. Sarah Hardy. Thank you. I have to say when I read the, the houses version, I had this like weird flashback to that bill that we worked on for the special education advisory council. You guys remember that where there were like a million members and they were, I was like, ah, not this again. So the version that you came up with is, is much more streamlined. So I appreciate that. I'm just, I'm just a question. I'm just skimming through it. Is there anything in here about student accessibility and affordability of the state colleges, knowing that their tuition is really high and wanting to make sure that whatever we come up with moving forward is more affordable for students. I thought I saw it, but now I can't find it. Yeah, let me. I think it says to meet stacles and learners needs. Um, promote student success. Yeah, that's, that's not as specific as what you're asking for. Um, we could certainly add that. So you're, you're talking about affordability. For students. Yeah, essentially, you know, we've talked about this a lot in the context of our bills on students, scholarships, et cetera, and just wanting to make sure that that doesn't get lost in the shuffle of how to save the state colleges that if we save them, we need them to be affordable for students to go there. Yeah, I don't know, Jim, if there's a place you think you can add something like that, but just underscoring students and access. Is there a twice already? Oh, where is it, Jim? So it's on subsection E, the leading language to the one, two, and three shall offer recommendations on how to increase affordability, access, retention, attainment, et cetera. Oh, I see. Yeah. And then at the very beginning of the bill, subsection A is there. So it's on my four or five. So it's called the affordable sustainable feature. So you've got twice. Okay. Well, I guess the lead-in, it's not clear who is it affordable to. Is it affordable for students or affordable for taxpayers or whom? So I guess making sure that we're talking about student access and affordability is my concern. So. And I, I, the other issue is as I appreciate the need and desire to focus on the state colleges and to do so quickly because you're right, there's so many people who are wanting to know what's going on. I also think that after we stabilize the state colleges, a larger discussion about higher education in Vermont is really important to have. And I'm wondering if we could include language about recommendations about, I don't know, the next step after this or something that would sort of queue up that conversation to happen. I guess I hesitate to ask this group to do that because I, I feel like having been a part of these committees, what you do is you apportion your meetings, depending on your charge. And so I wouldn't want to take away their meetings on this, but I, I could see a separate bill that goes through in January that puts in place a follow on to this. You know, we're only, by the time we adjourn, there's only going to be about four or five months until January. And so I suppose that's when I would think about doing it is actually creating what you're talking about at that point. Okay. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. I just want to make sure we don't lose that momentum of caring about education. And I fully agree that's a discussion that has to happen. But once we've got this set of solutions in hand. I think that your handle. Yeah. Senator Hardy's point about affordability reminded me, because somebody asked me about our, what we're called their free tuition bill even though it wasn't free tuition, but, and, and if there was an opportunity here, if this consultant was going to look at these and their feeling was that there's some, some, some programmatic or in financial efficiencies of doing the free tuition and wondering, other than just saying how to increase affordability. Do you think it would be getting too far field, like your response to the last point, if, if we had something in there about, you know, free tuition or reduced tuition or just to like, along Senator Hardy's point saying more than just how to increase affordability in here. I agree. So there's already a place where it asks to their committee to look at other states systems. Jim. Maybe right there we could look at other states, tuition reduction or free college programs. That would be great. Other thoughts like New York's exactly. Okay. Are people okay with those changes. Is Jim going to get a, are you going to get a draft with those changes about affordability and other college others. I get that and then this is going in the form of an amendment I believe who's offering the amendment. We can all offer it. All the members of the committee. And it would go out on Thursday morning. So third reading. And to the Q one budget. Okay. And when you have those changes made, if you want to just email, email it out to the committee, Jim. Ruth. So I don't know if this is the right time to bring this up, but this is related to higher ed. And yeah, and my, my thing earlier where I said, remember that I supported the dependent schools, which is. And this is in our transitions work group report, which is to provide some funding to the independent colleges, specifically for testing and PPE. The colleges have 23,000 students, and they're coming back 18,500 of them are from out of state. And there, the state has said that they don't think they'll have enough testing capacity to test all those students when they come back to our state. And so the independent colleges are going to be required to come up with their own testing resources and PPE. And so this is a huge issue in my town, of course, where a quarter of the residents in Middlebury are students from out of town. And so there's a lot of anxiety here, but I'm assuming and it's true in Craftsbury and Bennington and Montpelier maybe all the plate all the places that have independent colleges that are especially the small towns where they make up a significant portion. I was wanting to request that we put funding into this budget that would help support that the testing and that we somehow just either I don't know appropriate to the agency of education or if we can give it directly to a Vic to have them distribute in some way. In talking to Susan Stitely this morning that the just to provide one test to each of the out of state students coming in it's about $3 million and then the PPE estimate is about 750,000. So, 4 million all told about 4 million all all told for testing and PPE. And I just wanted to put that out there and request the committee, if we could just advocate for that to along the same lines of, you know, we're all in this together these people are going to be living in our communities and we want to make sure that we're as safe as possible when they return. No, I'm, I'm 100% behind that. I live in Burlington, we're going to have 10,000 out of state students come back. It's a huge issue in terms of how is the just to give you one quick example, the Weinberger administration. They thought they were doing a good thing so they put out to the community saying, we've developed a program. So when the students come back, we'll have city police monitoring adherence to social distancing guidelines by driving through neighborhoods to make sure there aren't big parties. I think that in the context of the George Floyd protests, and there were immediate, you know, really, really strenuous objections to this to being police to, you know, having those people in their neighborhoods. So, you know, there's a whole lot that's going to go on there. But again, to go back to the public health idea, we should not be skimping on testing contact tracing PPE. Ruth, I agree with you. I think I saw everybody nodding when you were talking. Why don't I talk to Jane directly. Ask her tell her that the committee. Am I, am I reading the committee right to it. Does everybody support that idea. Yes, it was, it was brought up with me to with Norwich University in Northfield. Okay, so let me talk to James, see what she thinks is the most efficient route and sound her out on the amounts. But I will use a round figure of 4 million. And you would be thinking, Ruth, of, is it just members of AVIC or any independent college because there are, I think there's still at least one or two that aren't members. I think there was Green Mountain College was not a member but then they closed. So, I think they're all members at this point there may be. The cartoon. Right, the cartoon college and they have very few students I think they have maybe maybe 100 or 200. I don't think we could appropriate it to AVIC. Yeah, I don't know how that worked, but I can forward you the email fill that I got from Susan this morning that has the numbers in it. Okay. And she gave me the list of all the colleges that are members of AVIC to, but I don't know who is not on that list. All right. So I hope that we can have some new stitely language to refer to. If this goes through, she'll forgive us for the modified stitely. Okay, so I will, I will look into that. I will say I don't know if you saw Senator Kitchell on our zoom call holding her head.  She thinks brought on by all the zoom. I'm going to zoom from morning tonight. So I will do my best to contact her tonight. Might be tomorrow. But once I do, I'll try to get word back to the committee about what that looks like and what route it might take. Okay, so any anything else on that. So our last element, which is the transitions team and the letter that came out from, among others, Ruth, Jim, and Debbie. And we have about a half an hour left. So however you guys would like to verbally annotate your letter or, or run down the process you took or what you think are the most important things for us to look at. The only thing I'll say is, we have about a week and a half until we go on break. So, taking up big things at this point will be immediately interrupted. So anything large would necessarily need to wait till August. And then anything really large would probably then wait till January. So things we could be doing immediately things we could do in August and that three tiered system. So start whoever however, whenever. Okay, well I can start because I was it was Anthony, Senator Polina and I did the, the education section. And I sent it along to all of you, just for your information along with the full letter. And I, I had a quick conversation with Senator Westman just before our meeting to see what else is being what is being taken care of where, and it sounds to me, you know, our transition committee was specifically on the transition back from COVID or the transition in and out of COVID. So the longer term issues were done by the other subcommittee. So it sounds to me like the health and welfare committee is addressing a lot of the childcare issues. And so we wouldn't necessarily need to. I think the one area where we might want to see if there's anything that that need the dressing is in pre K. Under the umbrella of K-12 schools, you know, or private childcare and, you know, so I don't know that there's anything specific there. I think a longer term look at how many hours we we fund for pre K but that's for next session and beyond, not for now. In K-12 schools, some of those issues were addressed this morning or this earlier by Secretary French and are addressed in the budget bill. The, the language in the, the, in our transitions work group. We talked about facilities work which we have, at least in part addressed with Andy's package food service, which I just, I don't know Phil if you're, if the understanding is that that part of that 50 million would be for food service. That was a question I wanted to get from the secretary or if this other food security package may address those issues. I heard you asked him that and I interpreted his answer as he intends to fund that directly with this 50 million. That's what I thought to from his response. So that that may be addressed already just making sure that we have summer food and making sure our food service programs are are appropriate for the fall or ready for the fall. One thing he did allude to but I don't know that he got into much detail was the mental health and trauma services that may be necessary for schools in the fall. I want to make sure that we that there's enough of an emphasis for I know that a lot of students are going to need extra services and making sure schools are prepared for that. And then the compensatory education for both special education and regular education students frankly, who were didn't get as much education as they had in because of remote learning. And then the the the thing I asked the secretary about with the professional development and making sure that teachers are trained not only for working with COVID but also the potential for more remote learning and making sure it's more robust. I know that's the same conversation you're having at higher education level to. Those were the things in the K 12 area that I'm just looking close quickly at what we and then of course the whole and the Education Fund and how do we address that more broadly. I thought that was good news when he said they've identified 16 million that in essence could be plugged in with COVID funding. And then there's some stuff around that that helps. He, he was talking about realizing it through a clawback. So, I assume that's going to be the administration's main proposal is when we come back as a clawback of a varying size depending what the budget hole looks like at that point. And K 12 areas just whether or not the committee feels like we should better define the use of that 50 million and I'm, you know, I always like to have things defined I like plans but I also understand the need for flexibility so that that's a conversation perhaps, and then in higher education. I think that most of the things that were in the transitions committee report. We did recommend another $5 million for student grant aid and that was in the budget and I clear I confirmed that was center Westman. Another thing was making sure that there was sufficient transition money for both for for VSC and then funding for UVM. One thing that is was in our report was a and make the with the UVM funding given the testimony that we've heard about some of the decisions they've made. And maybe having some language, I guess, based on my question earlier today, during our caucus I'm concerned about UVM getting additional funding for a new program. When they're doing things like cutting salaries and closing their childcare center so something about equity and in there and transparency in their funding. And then the final thing is the PPE and testing for the independent colleges which hopefully we can address. And then the last paragraph was on arts organizations and I talked to center Westman and he suggested I reach out to the Economic Development Committee about that. So that's not necessarily in our daily wick but Well, I want to go to Debbie in just a second and see if she can give us clarity on which pieces health and welfare is going to do to the UVM language. I have had a couple of conversations with Senator Kitchell about that. I think that's one of the things of the opinion that we can't condition the covert money in the ways that the UVM faculty have been asking for. That's not to say that we need to fund that new program. I want to hear you on that. If you remember President Garamella pitch that to us prior to the covert epidemic that was a $2 million expenditure. I do think that if we can do it for one year with covert funding and use it as a way to stabilize the business community with UVM resources. That seems to me a way to get the federal government to pay for something that no doubt they were going to get anyway. UVM is successful in appropriations almost to 100% of what they asked for usually. So I like the fact that it was using the one time federal money and that Jane said after that it had to sink or swim on its own. But what in other words she said conditioning the covert money was not legally allowable in her opinion. But I said what about the next budget that we write because we'll have an appropriation for UVM and that that won't be covert money. And so she said she would be willing to talk about it at that point. So that's kind of where I have my, my iron in the fire with her on that. You mean the budget we do in August that yeah okay. Yeah. Debbie so are we right in assuming that we've been talking about a big chunk of money that would go to childcare. Is that coming from your committee the other committee.  No one went well we couldn't find him this morning. So tomorrow we're going to go over. And her alliance works on a $215 million spending package for healthcare related items and and she said that childcare is part of that. I don't really have any specifics though. Okay, they were, I know they were asking in the realm of like 18 to $20 million I don't know if she put in all that. How about I have been contacted by you, Ruth, you might know Dan DeWalt. I think he's down your way. Yeah, he contacted me about he's a trauma counselor. And he contacted me about the need for increased trauma counseling and mental health services as kids go back. Is that something health and welfare is looking at. Yes, yeah, definitely. Good in the school study trauma. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yeah, that's part of it. Okay. Okay. So, Ruth out of the stuff you mentioned the biggest action piece is the independent college piece money that has to be done in the next day or two. And then, as far as whether we would try to make more specific, the spending that is going to come out of the 50 million. I know from Kate that the house was going to work on some general language around what was allowable, but I have a feeling it won't be any more specific than the guidance a we has already put out. I guess, if I think about it, if we wrote something, you know, we have the secretary list five or six areas of spending, we would wind up having to say something like, these are allow, you know, including but not limited to these things, doesn't really change the state of affairs in terms of what it could be spent on, because the word including would still allow the flexibility for categories we haven't anticipated. So, I suppose that's an area where I think the, the secretary and a we have had discretion, and they will have discretion on the coded items that come in. And that's the system we've had working through half the spending. So it seems like, you know, continuing it seems to me like a fine, a fine way to proceed because I can't imagine specific guidelines that wouldn't be overly restrictive. That makes sense. I'm assuming that that 50 or 41 million is all. Well set aside is all for reimbursement so like school spend the money and then they submit receipts or a report or whatever to AOE and then they get reimbursed with the CRF money is that your understanding of how it's going to work. So that they would then get guidance from AOE about what are they allowable things then, yeah, do a monthly whatever, and get their money back. And so, as he said, code everything. They're, they're coding, as I, as I understand it they're coding generously, like with the, with the idea that, you know, this that or the other thing might ultimately be declared. No, that's going to have to go out of your general budget. But that, you know, 95% of it would be allowable expenses. And I'm not 100% clear on, you know, the state is in essence going to do the same thing. Pass on all of these expenses to the federal government, at which point, you know, there might be some disallowed expenses in the Q one budget if you notice there's now a, you know, a hold harmless provision that says if you act it in good faith, you won't be asked to pay that money back. So ultimately the state general fund is going to have to pick up a lot of those expenses that are ultimately disallowed, hopefully not too many but Okay, other other thoughts. Yeah, Andy. It was brought up earlier that the 1 million or the whatever that number is 1.5 million is that is the house still proceeding with that. Remember the approved independence. No, for the evaluation of all the school buildings remember they had. Oh, you know, we took testimony on the school construction bill. It's in ways and means and hasn't moved. I did check in with representative web about that she says that Janet Ansel likes it, but that was the last I heard. When it's gotten kicked after this, you know, Q one train. It's hard to believe we're going to do it before we leave. So what I would imagine is that they. It doesn't make it over to us before we go home, but then in August it does. I said to Kate. I thought we had had a lot of positive testimony on it. And that we had some questions about the amount of money we had some questions about, could more money go to district sooner. But that in general we were supportive of it, and that we would try to get her a version of it back to her. But that presumes that they get something to us so I don't know if you guys have noticed, but I have. I haven't done a lot of stuff. But when you look at what they've sent us over the last, you know, two years. They really haven't put forward a lot in the way of legislation. And that's typical with the House committee. I think I said the other day, I've been chairing this committee for four years. I think they've sent over seven bills. They've sent over four years, which is kind of astounding, but their money committees are much more aggressive with them than ours are so their money committees kill their major bills, two thirds of the time. You know, just dead on the floor, not going anywhere. And fortunately, our appropriations committee and finance committee tend to work with us much more readily. So that will come to us, but it might be when we get back in August. Okay, thanks. Ruth. Yeah, I just got some updated information. One, the cartoon college has 48 students Susan just emailed you and me Phil. They are not federally accredited so they're not allowed to get federal funding apparently. And so that answers that question and everybody else is a member of a Vic. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. And then on a different topic, I asked the secretary to send any French to send any information he had on the uses of that 40 million or 50 million. And he does he sent me a little slide proposal which I can say I can forward you all this stuff. Just really quickly he said that 10 million of it would be for child nutrition for this summer. So that's good to know for the low who are looking at the nutrition 16 million for reimbursement of mandatory staffing costs for FY 20. And then he has 40 million for facilities reimbursement. This is a week old what he sent me so maybe now it's down a little bit. So that was the breakdown that he had identified when he presented it to the house. Well it's good to know that 10 million is going to food. Jim, can you join us for a sec. Sure. This is a perennial, you know, thorny debate. But when we talk about the independent colleges. I'm thinking here of St. Mike's. Are there issues with religious independence. And sending money to them. For the emergency. I think of the case we talked about earlier. The answer is no. Yeah, this is no, I think because it's a program designed to be neutral in terms of right. And it's not, it's not fungible. So it's, it's not like they're going to be able to. Direct it indirectly to a religious instruction. If it's for COVID costs. Electoral costs. Yeah. If it's for COVID costs. Electoral costs. Yeah. Because the context in which they operate. Design program. That said, the reservation I'll have is that that case. The rice case is still pending. So we don't know what's going with that. Yeah. Well, I suppose my tendency would just be again to include everybody. In the community. It is as Debbie knows very well. It is an issue that we've had with the house. Before. But, but let's try to cast the net as broadly as we can. Again, public health emergency. With everybody in the community being affected by everybody else in the community. So that would be it. Go with the Supreme court's recent trend. That would be it. Okay. So, um, So I'm going to talk to Senator Kitchell about. The money for independent college. PPE and testing. Jim is going to send us all a new draft with the few changes we made. And I think that's going to be a good idea. But I think that's going to be a good idea. And I think that stuff is. Already with the Appropriations Committee. And so those changes will get made. Am I forgetting anything? Immediate. Okay. So let's. Work on that. And. If I have any questions, I'll, I'll email back. But I think that's all pretty clear. Okay. Okay. So I think that's going to be a good idea. To clarify the, the independent college. Okay. All right. Have a great afternoon. And see you all soon. Thank you, everybody. Goodbye.