SmartTranscript of Senate Economic Development - 2025-03-13-8:30 AM

[Witness Wanda Manoli]: You all here? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And Good morning. Welcome to the senate economic development housing and general affairs. Do you need us? Most of us. Anyway, welcome. It's today, we are pivoting. If you leave, we are in Capital. Okay. Great. Well Hey. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Jack. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, we're today, we're pivoting to labor, and we have three labor drags in front of us. Not all of these measures are gonna make it through before crossover. Several of them clearly are gonna need more time and more work, and we are open to that. Obviously, we have a whole by ending to do some of this important work or not as some of the advocates I'm sure are. Yeah. But they're pretty impressed with us. But we are interested in hearing. We're gonna have a committed discussion after we hear from everybody. If feel free to speak to the issue you wanna speak to, advocates. Don't be constrained by where you are in the numbers of the draft because I think we're able to hold all those pieces in our head. But we're gonna begin with our biggest labor draft, six five two. We're referring to it as six five two, which begins with the minimum wage for agricultural workers. And we so that's the draft we're gonna start with. But if you need to speak to something else while you're here, you can you're welcome to. So we're gonna begin with six five two. We're gonna begin with Michael Harrington, our commissioner of the Department of Labor. And if you'd be can you find enough to clarify which section you're speaking to so that those of us who are trying to follow all of these sections in these three bills, that would be splendid. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Great. For the record, Michael Harrington, commissioner of department of labor. With me today, if we get into some of the details that the committee has, I have our deputy commissioner Kendall Smith here as well as our director of workers' compensation and safety Dirk Anderson to my right. So I think overall, you should have, either in front of you or online a memo that the department sent just this morning. So if you don't have it yet, it it is Yes. In transit. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's it's coming, but then probably have you because who needs a memo when we have the commissioners? [Witness Michael Harrington]: Well, knowing the amount of time and the detail and the kind of large and broad scope of these recommended changes, it's probably good to have it in writing as well so we can provide a little more context. Think overall, if we look at, if we're looking at, six fifty two, you know, we paired in this memo both six fifty two and six fifty three together, so I'll speak to both of those. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And and I think for for everybody, we may end up with one bill out of those two bills because there are so many pieces that are so they need more work. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. So when we review the bill, both bills together, there were some areas that were less concerning than others, some that were significant concerns for us. And so in totality, we would not support moving either of these bills or a combined bill forward at this time, especially not without more conversation and testimony from interested parties. I think what we'll do is go through section by section. We don't have a a lot of comments on on some of these. So, like, section one, minimum wage for agricultural workers. Our biggest recommendation there is that the Agency of Agriculture be involved in those conversations. They are the ones who work within this context, and I think it's important to hear from them and their experience working with the various agricultural entities across the state. Section three, payment of accrued vacation time and separation from and separation for employment. You know, we share the concerns of other witnesses on how to account for scenarios of businesses that offer limited or combined time off. So I think there's more conversation that needs to be had because not every not every employer has a very clear vacation or accrued leave policy. Alright? Some have unlimited leave and others have combined, but in time off. And so, without clarity around that, I think it it becomes a bit of a quagmire when trying to implement something like this. I think also from the department's perspective, there are a couple other impacts that I think need to be considered. I think one is making sure that there's a differ a differentiation between employees who are laid off or quit versus employees who are terminated for misconduct of any kind because those both have different implications. And [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: then at [Witness Michael Harrington]: the same time, whether it's regular misconduct or gross misconduct, I think also recognizing that the payout of vacation or accrued leave can also have an impact on somebody's unemployment benefits depending on how much they're receiving. So, again, recognizing that there are a downstream implications. So in in one way, I know that this section is about ensuring that workers get the the pay of the leave that they have that that they were awarded but haven't taken, and we certainly understand that. But I think a broader conversation about what are the the broader implications of this. I think we'd also I you may wanna also consider speaking with the Department of Human Resources because this this section would also have a direct implication on the state of Vermont as an employer. Right? So, again, as you're making a cost impact. It would have a cost impact for the state of Vermont as an employer as well. So that's kind of our our general summation of section three. Section four, I may May I just pause [Chair Alison Clarkson]: and update all of you? This is an evolving conversation. Our job is to get what we value and care about, this committee does, to the House for further conversation. As you all know, the Senate is constrained with time. So, our challenge is to get what we value and care about off to the Senate, I mean, off to the House for further conversation. So I would just remind us, it's an evolving conversation. If we pass something I know we passed our DOL technical corrections bill yesterday. I know there are areas that some people in this room are concerned with. A house is a great place for further conversation. They have a lot more time. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. So Absolutely. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I would just say that as we go through these pieces. Okay. Great. [Witness Michael Harrington]: I I may let Dirk speak to the workers' compensation section as we go through them. But I think specifically with section four, there are significant cost implications that this would have. So And [Chair Alison Clarkson]: and we would have a JFO memo that's coming to us [Witness Michael Harrington]: a a little later. So we had the National Council on Compensation Insurance do an estimate of the gross changes and what that impact would be. It would be an impact or increase on the workers' comp system of between four and almost seven percent. So that's about seven million to thirteen million dollars. Dirk, I don't know if you wanna add anything on section four, but I think our biggest concern is the added cost to the to the system. I thank you. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Dirk Anderson, Department of Labor, I believe like the commissioner said, that's our biggest concern is the cost. There are some other issues associated with, including the health care premium and the average weekly wage, but I understand the committee is really constrained for time this morning. I can get into that if you want or not. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We also saw the MCCI memo, and my understanding was that the that they'd send up costs about five to six point nine percent. Yes. So which is is that [Witness Matt Musgrave]: what we're asking is the [Witness Michael Harrington]: seven thousand million [Chair Alison Clarkson]: dollars. Okay. Yeah. [Witness Michael Harrington]: From NCCI. There's some other, again, kinda tangential implications here that also need to be considered. You know, some employees continue to receive employer paid health insurance while they're out on temporary disability, so needing to distinguish between temporary and total permanent disability and how that would impact this scenario as well. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But let me just ask here. Isn't this is the this is Section four. This is section four. This is the inclusion of health care. This is a big conversation. I understand that. I appreciate that. On the other hand, many, many of the rest of the employees recovered under workers' comp have their health benefits included in as part of their wage package. I mean, that is a standard practice. [Witness Michael Harrington]: And I would just Is that not [Chair Alison Clarkson]: true, Dirk? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Roughly half [Witness Dirk Anderson]: of Vermont employees do have health care coverage provided by their employers. So, again, you're talking about a benefit for half the population and that the other half is not going to get. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So half of the population is already dealing with this and is already incorporated for them in workers' comp. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Well, no. The they are receiving the health care benefit. However, when an average weekly wage is is is computed, the value of that health care premium is not included in the employee's average weekly wage. Section four would include that, and that in turn would mean that those employees with health care benefits would receive a higher wage replacement benefit, indemnity benefit, and that would drive up the cost to the system as NCCI estimated by between seven and thirteen million dollars a year. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Nice. Yeah. Okay. So [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: what would they what would the cost be otherwise of how they access health care at that time? Where does that cost go? Right. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: This is not about their access to health care. It's about giving if their employer provides them with health care insurance, this amendment would add the value of that health care premium to their average weekly wage resulting in a higher wage replacement benefit. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Mhmm. [Witness Michael Harrington]: And if their employer doesn't include, then their average weekly wage would be lower. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: On the other hand, I think where they should maybe be going with that is the higher the more people get through workers' comp means the less they're having to rely on other state subsidies or state support when they're Right. When they're not working. So [Witness Michael Harrington]: It but it only it only benefits those that are receiving health care benefits through their employer at the time of the insurance. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I think this is a big conversation, and I anyway, let's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yes. So [Witness Matt Musgrave]: section And I'll go ahead and talk about [Witness Michael Harrington]: nine point five, translation services as part of workers' comp. Again, department in Sorry. So you missed [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you didn't discuss the medical case management, which I understand [Witness Al Gordon]: is section [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's part of section four. Six. No. It's both. Okay. [Witness Michael Harrington]: So we can just [Chair Alison Clarkson]: got it at section six. Alright. Great. [Witness Michael Harrington]: So the in in just looking at section five by itself, department doesn't have any major issues with providing translation services. As a practical matter, the cost of translation services would be borne by insurance carriers Right. And be built into the pricing structure. So there are, again, cost implications. We don't have a cost analysis, although it's expected that this would be relatively de minimis compared to the previous section in a insurance cost. But in terms of providing more accessibility for folks, we're certainly super of that. Right. Go ahead. From the case management perspective, we support the addition of medical case management services to those benefits covered. Medical case management serves are already widely used by insurance carriers in certain circumstances. This amendment would merely apply to the preexisting preauthorization process for such service. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And I think we're viewing section six and sort of cleanup from our work over the last couple of years. Okay. So you're okay with that? Right. So yeah. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Again, on the timely payments, certainly, the department supports individuals receiving whatever benefits they're entitled to in a timely manner, so we don't oppose this in any way. Okay. I think what we don't have a clear understanding on, and and, Derek, feel free to jump in here, is what that looks like in totality. So there isn't a way necessarily for us to aggregate how many payments across the entire workforce health system are binary versus no. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So we hear very clearly that there are a lot of payments that are not timely, and I know you're I I I understand that you're appreciative of that as well. And the I think we've there are some on this committee that think this may be too steep a penalty slide and whatever we call this slide. Scale. Scale. Maybe I'm channeling Kara. Yeah. But I I think that I would agree that this is anything we can do to get people the money they need. People who are working paycheck to paycheck, this is an ascent I think an essential thing for us to make sure happens in a timely fashion. Let's we can look at the slide and see scale rather and see if if it's you know, see what might work. But if by law at the moment, it goes up to ten percent, it's just we're shifting the time frame on the on that ten percent. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Sure. And then you wanna add at this point. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Again, our we can't come up with percentage of weekly payments that are late. Anecdotally, we know that it does happen. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Testimony. Yeah. And we've I haven't heard an anecdote. We've got it from real people. Okay. Right. Right. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. I think the the anecdotal is just we don't have data. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. And and I think that's one of the things we need generally. Kendall and I think there may should be much more data in a whole data agent. Yeah. Okay. So that's that's section seven. [Witness Michael Harrington]: So moving on to section eleven, I don't I'm gonna provide some comments, but I'll I'll put a caveat in there. I don't want to presume or speak on behalf of others that are testifying. I'm looking specifically at commissioner Manoli, who I know has a direct correlation in parole the the bill makes in general services. So there are a couple of things I think we wanna flag. One is there's an Section eleven. In section eleven. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And the department is greater. Yeah. Right. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. So the Department of Labor, when we have to do the calculation, there's, in this section, a requirement that we would be, pulling information from various collective bargaining agreements. Those are outlined and there isn't necessarily a way for us to know, in totality what collective bargaining agreements are out there either by industry, organization, or by locality. So, again, that that creates a substantial challenge for us in this area when we want Matt Berowitz and our labor market information division to do the calculation and take into account collect existing collective bargaining agreement. So there's there's some logistical issues or concerns in that area because there isn't necessarily a method currently for having those accessible for us. Gotcha. I think the other things I just I wanna point out, having had experience in through our role at the department and working with buildings and general services, you know, anything that creates additional strain or requirements on contractors creates has an adverse effect in the number of contractors that want to do business with the state of Vermont. And so I do think that is a concern. There is the potential that this would not only increase construction costs, but it would increase the administrative burden on construction providers, contractors. And so, again, we may be creating a scenario where it has a very meaningful and negative impact on the state's ability to do its business with with contractors. Thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I appreciate your concern about prevailing weight. Again, I think this is a big conversation. However, section g is an area I think we could actually act on because I know you're how you feel about misclassification as much as I feel about misclassification. So anything we can do to rein in misclassification is something I actually care a lot about. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. And and So [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I would love to have your feeling on direction g. Great. Probably. I don't have people kind of follow-up with you. What is section g? Section g is the only commission of certified payroll, which is common in other states. This is not unusual. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And it's and would reduce misclassification. And I think in past, the COL has been very supportive of that. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. The so the part we highlight around the submission, I think is more, again, logistical than what the intent is around misclassification or combating misclassification. So, I think that that and this is why I think this is worth at least more conversation from our standpoint. One is, either, the impact on the contractor to maintain those wage records, but then we're also in this bill creating a system where they would have to not only maintain wage records, but submit wage records to overseeing agencies, whether it be the Department of Labor, the, Buildings and General Services, Agency of Transportation or others, to review those wage records. And we're talking about extremely, protected information both at the state and federal level. So then you also have to have methods for how do you transmit that data, how you store that data, and then how do you get rid of or terminate that data when you're no longer using it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Hardly seems a hardship quite honestly for the companies of this scale that and that we're paying taxes on all those individuals. I mean, this so I think a lot of anyway Yeah. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, so not only that, but I'm sure there are models in other states. But [Witness Michael Harrington]: it's a challenge right now. And, again, I'm I'm not speaking, and I don't wanna speak on behalf of commissioner Manoli, but it is a challenge right now getting contractors who want to do work in Vermont. And so the more difficult we make it, the less likely they are to want to participate. I think from my standpoint, I'm just flagging the fact that what you're also asking in here is that those waived records then go on to state agencies that may not have current methods in place for managing those. So there is going to be a significant impact just knowing as a department that does receive, maintain, and destroy as necessary wage records, that it is not a inexpensive process. That's not an easy process. It comes with a lot of both state and federal requirements about it. So if we're asking these wage records to then be submitted by the controlling entity or the one that's contracting for the work that creates, again, some significant implications around protection of fraudulent information. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So maybe it's good for us to have a refresher. How do you handle misclassification concerns and complaints now? [Witness Michael Harrington]: So, again, we're talking about transmitting wage record versus misclassification. Those are two very different conversations. So if we wanna talk about misclassification, we can certainly do that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: They're part and parcel, I think. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Not in terms of what we're discussing here. So, again, I'm just raising concern that we're talking about protected information and the transmission and maintaining of that information. I'm not talking about, again, what would be the implication of misclassification. On that standpoint, whether it's the contractor, whether it's it's usually by way of, the biggest misclassification we see are when someone applies for unemployment insurance benefits. And when we query our system, their wages are not in the system, which typically means they were identified as an independent contractor of some kind. And so what we then do is have to open an audit or investigation into whether they actually had an independent contractor relationship with the employers or whether they should have been deemed an employee. So it does require a significant investigation and audit of the company's books. So, again, if we're if we're increasing if this has a potential to vastly increase the number of investigations and also a significant burden that's gonna put on the partners, I'm not against it. We just those are the conversations we need to be having Right. Because we won't be able to to keep up with the the significance of that. But it would be on a on a statewide level, I think we're then talking about, from a whoever's receiving those wage records has to review those wage records, then they if they're seeing instances of misclassification, they would have to be experts in that. If it's the Department of Labor that you then want to review all of these wage records on an individual basis, that's also a massive undertaking that we don't currently do. So the for us right now, when we combat misclassification, it's usually either based on random audits that we're required to do with businesses or it's because we're receiving complaints from from a claimant that they are looking for benefits and we don't have their wages. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, so, I mean, these are also for state project. [Member David Weeks]: Correct. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: These are big So lawyers. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You're saying that right now, nobody has this information, nobody wants the information about who's being employed on the job, what they're being paid No. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: I'm not saying that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Would like to [Witness Michael Harrington]: yeah. I'm just saying that, again, when we're putting in this requirement of them maintaining a wage record for each of their employees and submitting it to let's say, there's a contract with A and R or BGS, and now you're wanting BGS to review to receive the record. Be with A and R? [Witness Al Gordon]: It could be. It could be with the I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: mean, go go go [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: go go [Chair Alison Clarkson]: go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go go [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: go go go go go go go go [Witness Michael Harrington]: works? That's not usually how the contract it works for the state. So, again, like, for instance, we're having work done on our building right now, and Department of Labor is the entity that's on the contract with that vendor. So it's not BGS. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But BGS doesn't just have, like, a carbon copy because it's a state building? [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. I I prefer to make sure we know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We'll have one in a sec. [Witness Michael Harrington]: We Yeah. So So I again, I'm just I'm just flagging concerns. And you're not have a deeper conversation about missed class, we can also follow-up [Chair Alison Clarkson]: with that. So we could shift it to six five three. You have another concern about the good cause. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Yeah. This has [Witness Michael Harrington]: wide reaching and broad implications. I'll be completely honest. The department does not support this in any way, shape, or form in terms of changing the entire employment structure for the state of Vermont from a Hatwell state to a a good cause state. I think it's if we want to have that conversation, we're certainly willing to be a part of that on a much broader level. But there's been very little conversation thus far on what the implications would be across the entire employment scheme, for the state of Vermont. So, again, we we adamantly opposed that section. Happy to have further conversation, but we haven't dug deep into that yet. And I think we would encourage this committee to continue that conversation if it is interested in having that conversation with all of the interested parties. And I think that's probably fair. That that would be our our Probably fair. So, otherwise, the that ends our testimony at least on the different sections. I'm happy [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to answer questions. Thanks, Shai. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I know you can't speak for them. I don't know if you spoke with Ag. I'm going back to section one. Okay. Just so folks are aware, we've been having this conversation from the summer into the fall Right. To now with our cap force. We had add in to that discussion. And this of all the bills that we've had, this one has actually been on the wall or in conversation the longest. I am very concerned about, you know, conversations that are truncated because we haven't gotten language, but this is one where, you know, you've had the better part of a year to have this conversation. So did did they say they weren't allowed to comment? Or [Witness Michael Harrington]: I might look to To academic Smith. Our let me just say that our position on section one is is neutral. We don't Okay. We don't have a position. Okay. It was it was just to recommend that they be a part of that group. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Go ahead. And they have been as and we're relying on our two task force members in large measure given our time frame. Sure. We also, I think, are like to be consistent, and we have in one bill gotten rid of a subminimum wage. And it is really of great concern to us that so many of our treasured ag workers are earning less than minimum wage for the work that they do and that we are all dependent on. So I think this is a Yeah. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: This is a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think something that we can work on, I hope, this year. But thank you, Michael, very much. Do you have one I have [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: one more. I have one more question on section three. We were like, we've been really cops. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yes. Sorry. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: It's okay. It's okay. It's probably for the best. I I think what has happened in this area of the law is that, you know, benefits have evolved in a way that meets, you know, millennial needs for flexibility or work life balance, whatever. And then so we've said, like, oh, you know, combined time off, unlimited time off, whatever it is. Mhmm. And that will have real world implications that are sometimes negative for people. You know, that just kind of means you're working all the time where you, you know, are expected not to take the that time off. And I I really think we might be seeing a trend where people are just not getting the the the cash value of a lot of that time off and maybe not the personal quality of life benefit of that time off. So, you know, I feel like this is part of responding to an evolving situation, not just saying, oh, you know, some businesses do it this way. You know, they're doing it that way, but that's why we're starting to hear employees say, you know, I don't feel now like I'm getting any time off unless I have a true emergency. You know? So so I I just feel strongly about this one from a constituent, and I I think the better approach would be that businesses have a policy that that says you have unlimited time off. But if you you know, I don't even know what we do about unlimited time off, honestly. I think people deserve some measure in a policy of a business of what they can expect if they are working every day and then are separated from their appointment, how to accept the cash value of that benefit. [Witness Michael Harrington]: So I'll say too, we weren't we were not opposed to section three. Okay. I I think, again, we're we're relatively neutral on that. I I we agree that if someone has earned the time and the way out, they should receive it. I think all all we did was flag there are a couple of questions. And so maybe that those are questions we continue on the [Member David Weeks]: how I'm [Chair Alison Clarkson]: not go ahead. [Witness Michael Harrington]: I think But I think yeah. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: In general I'm just letting [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: the clarity on those two sections. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Yeah. And we're neutral. In in [Witness Michael Harrington]: other scenarios, and I'll use it as an example. Right? There are many times where under current state law, we defer to what the the employment policy is at the employing agency. So if they have an employee handbook, we will many times defer to the employee handbook. But in cases where there is an employee handbook, there has to be at least some clarity provided to the department. So, again, for for unlimited time off. Right? So when we talk about a separation at that point, we we would need language that says we'll defer to what that means in the employee handbook in terms of payout of that time, or we would need some guiding language that said, if they have if they don't have a a an official policy, what does that mean? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And this goes hand in glove with our work in our economic development bill, quite honestly, which is helping really, we we have a section that builds ownership and entrepreneurial new business training for owners. And this you know, all of the building resources to for our small businesses so that they have these kinds of policies in place is really important. So I think for some of our work is going hand in glove here. Dirk, do you have anything else to add? Because we need to Might be no. Okay. Great. And you know how to reach us. Okay. Great. Thank you, everyone. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. I think we're gonna turn to Wanda. Is that are we Wanda, you're right behind me. Would you like me to I love the fact you're my bad. Wanda. I I don't know. Alex, it's great to have you, but I I'm I'm not if you have something to add, raise your hand, but I think we're gonna have to cruise through all the witnesses, and we we're we're grateful you're here. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: No problem. Here, listen. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Great. Thanks. So, Wanda, welcome. Good morning, madam [Witness Wanda Manoli]: chair and members of the committee. Wanda Manoli, commissioner of buildings and general services. I have had I'm working, just so the committee knows, from draft one point two. I just recently received a copy of it. I am going to just give a I'm not gonna repeat what commissioner Harrington said. I may highlight specifically some of those areas. It's possible because I heard you mentioned that you were working from a few drafts that you may have changed sections. So just have me move on. One draft on this. Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We have three different drafts of different bills. Okay. But they all this is the [Witness Wanda Manoli]: only draft we have Okay. On this issue. Thank you. Fair enough. Part of my process and when I first see a bill, I just want the committee to know is I immediately start reading the bill to look at the impact on the department, on our processes, as well as the suppliers that utilize the state and come through the contracting process. So I think that's where I'm gonna focus. I am pleased to hear that you are doing, I think, a fiscal note or an analysis Yeah. Patrick. From JFO because we have done this in the past. This bill in the sections that I'm gonna refer to does have a direct impact on the capital construction bill and the cost, which I believe is going to potentially be an increase. So I'll be excited to see that. The first area, if you give me a moment, I've had it folded, that I want to refer to in the bill. Section eleven? I had well, I wanted to speak to the collection of the information, which is section g. Just give [Chair Alison Clarkson]: me It's I think, section g of eleven. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Of eleven. Alright. So we'll just go to section eleven. How's that? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: On page, just for your help, it's on page I'm gonna seventeen. I'm on I'm [Witness Wanda Manoli]: gonna start on page sixteen. Okay. Great. On line four, there's a mention about the collective bargaining agreements that exist in the immediate locality with prevailing wage. So I quickly looked at that, and I I think it's important for the committee to know. When we bid out projects, we do it in multiple different manners. We may use a construction management. We may use design bid. We may do a standard bid. We also have retainer contracts that can go up to seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. And these so when they're bidding on a document or they're bidding on one of our projects, it is going to be so difficult for the industry, in my opinion, to determine where their workforce is coming from. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So if [Witness Wanda Manoli]: you use a construction management methodology, you may be bidding on the whole project in its totality. Best part is what you know. But if you get that award, then you start going out and getting your subcontractors. If those individuals are coming from other states or other, you know, other states, how do you evaluate what that what that rate is going to be? So I don't know if the outcome is we're gonna see an inflation on our bids and if we're going to see change orders or if contractors just are not gonna be able to manage through this process and truly will they bid. One of the things that we're experiencing at BGS and they've only been there since October is we're not getting as many responses to our bids. And part of my concern in evaluation is our estimation so off right now in comparison to what's really happening outside in the industry. So it's Just [Chair Alison Clarkson]: ask a question on that. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: You can ask a question in your life. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Contactors you have used in the past who aren't bidding on things. Have you actually reached out to them and asked why? [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Actually, I have. And I've been I've done some roundtable discussions with the AGC and some of that industry. And this is and the immediate findings is our timing and our cost estimation. And Vermont businesses, as you know, we all live in this great state. We if we are saying we're putting a project out to bid in April, They try to determine their workforce. So in the fall, they're trying to look at our list of work and what's coming. So they have to set themselves up to be successful. Do they keep employees on? Because is there work to get them through to April when these projects are coming? If we delay putting that project out or if we don't get all of the money, maybe through the capital bill and the phase approach doesn't work, then they just they're not investing in bidding because it's expensive. It's expensive for a contractor to put a bid together to respond to us. And so having that impact on those businesses and adding more, I'm my immediate read is I could just be simply concerned. I don't know what the outcome is gonna be. I don't even know how to evaluate this particular section in the bill. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Are [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: are you having this broader conversation in the institution's committee [Witness Wanda Manoli]: right now? I have spoken to the committee about this. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay. Yes. And and I [Witness Wanda Manoli]: did that when I did our introduction and in general, but then we start moving right to the capital building and start getting into the process. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I hear that committee needs things to do, and this feels, you know, I'm just know. Right? Well, I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: was trying to make things a little bit. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Oh. On the senate side. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I was Yeah. That I [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: would do that. Oh, okay. Yeah. We have a new committee Yes. And they're figuring out their charge. And I'm hearing a lot of much bigger things that intrigued me. Mhmm. Like, are you seeing all of the building contracts that that come into the state? Are they going straight to ag or A and R or Department of Labor? Let's say you were working with a particular company that could do multiple projects, but you're not even aware of them as they're going out to bid. Is that true? [Witness Wanda Manoli]: So first of all, all contracts come through buildings and general services. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So for payment contracting is that Okay. Some entities Did did I misunderstand what was happening? [Witness Wanda Manoli]: No. I think what the piece that wasn't that was missing, I think you understood it, is that the money may be appropriated Mhmm. To a specific department. When it's appropriated to a department, they oversee the project. When it's appropriate but we still do the contracting. Okay. When it's appropriated to us, we not only do the contracting, but we oversee the the construction project. We have we have retainer contracts, and this was an outcome of COVID. And it's a great thing that I think buildings and general services did, which we weren't doing. We and we've increased. So we go out to bid for carpenters or for door installation or for roofs or small general construction projects. And we have a list, an existing list, and their contract is good for two years, and they're retaining contracts. So what we can do is we can reach out to those individuals that have these and say, we have this project so we could Mhmm. Keep work going, be more efficient with the process. But they've already bid. They've already bid what their what their fees are going to be and how they're, you know, how they're gonna do it. So it's in this window. I'm really concerned that this bill where I think we've advanced in working with the industry, this potentially could have an impact on those smaller projects, which keep our keeps the industry moving. It's a it's a way to support them. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I mean, I have a feeling there's a lot of factors at play with why Vermont is low on the list, you know, if you're a regional contractor to get this work. New York and Massachusetts have at least the misclassification piece as I understand it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The section g piece. Right? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: The section g as we're calling it. That that is a that is more of a a good record keeping provision. Mhmm. If I understand that we might not get to a a good enough fiscal impact estimate on the larger prevailing wage question. I think what you're hearing is that there's particular interest in looking at the record keeping piece, to better understand who in the state with major state projects has wage records, how we securely, you know, have them on hand for the duration of a project, for example. That does seem to be standard in some other states around us. Do you can you can we just go to that piece? Yeah. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: We we certainly can. And and so what I want first of all, I I'm not familiar with New York or Massachusetts. Okay. I think that commissioner Harrington spoke to there is a process to evaluate this somewhat in place. When I look at this language, I immediately go, oh my gosh. I don't even know how to manage this. I don't even know what to do with this information. How do I protect this information? Because the language says you're gonna mail it weekly or you're gonna send it email, and and I'm gonna start with a contract. What does that look like? What does that mean? What do I do with the information? I have no no I don't know how I could deliver this section to the committee. And I always say, and what's the outcome? What do you wanna accomplish with this language? Right. And I and, again, reading this draft Mhmm. Being fairly new in the last forty hours into this conversation. And the impact, I think, that this would I don't know how what businesses would say. I don't know if you've talked to contractors. I don't know what this means to them. Mhmm. There may be a full system in New York and Massachusetts where they do where they collect this and that they manage and they protect that information. I think this is a really I think this opens us up for a lot of risk and vulnerability in the way that it's drafted. Because as a commissioner, I cannot guarantee you that I can protect any of this information, where it's gonna come in, what we're gonna do with it, and who knows. Oh, but, happily, we wouldn't have [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to reinvent the wheel because so many other states already do this. I mean, I I think we could learn from the other states that do this. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Possibly. But we have not I and and, again, I don't you know, if this were to move quickly and become effective, I do not know if this how [Chair Alison Clarkson]: is it exactly right? So [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: but okay. I also think the I I I don't wanna reinvent any wheels. Correct. I'm not a BGS person. You know, you're often an institution. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: I don't wanna reinvent wheels, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you know. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Department of Labor does keep extremely sensitive information about wages and Yes. Records. And we've heard from them that there might be, you know, some thoughts to that. But it sounds like BGS, you don't keep a lot of sensitive data on file. Would you say that's No. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: We we keep the contract and and and what comes in. And if we get public records request, we do have to go. There's still information that we have to protect. But if you think if this is a Mhmm. You know, a sixty million dollar project Yeah. And there are gonna be multiple employees Right. Multiple contracts, can you just imagine that volume? And that's where I'm at right right now, and I do not have a method, a system. I don't have a gap. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I don't even In addition to New York [Witness Wanda Manoli]: and Massachusetts, this is a federal requirement. Right. As well. But the but the the I believe they I can't speak for the Department of Labor, but there there's a way that they file those records, and then the employer is the one who maintains those records. We put the burden or the responsibility on the contractor. And then if there's a complaint, that is those records become open and those are evaluated, and that's because they're the ones signing our contract, which requires them to pay prevailing wage. And and the contract lays out, you know, everything that they have to do. So that responsibility has already been put on the contractor. This is adding I again, what's what what information do we want? Because we're adding duplicative record keeping, I believe, in in some scenarios with this. I'm not sure that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I don't know that. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Well, and that may again, I'm reading the bill, and I'm looking at it from what are you asking me to do and how is it impacting the contractors? And I have concern. Tom? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So I definitely not comfortable moving at a pace that the administration and the people working in these roles are are moving at. My question is, is there a a way that we can, get this conversation to get more of those answers to those questions that you have? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I love reports or studies. But would we report from your commission between now and January with an idea of what this would take so you could do some benchmarking with other states so that we could come back in the spring to have better ideas about how Vermont could emulate our peers? [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Well, I mean, I I would say yes to to some of that. Not that reports are my favorite, but I'm I'm sitting here running a department that does a lot of work, and I can't compare. I can't. I don't have the information from the other states. I don't know if they're using the system, what their methodology is. I think it's a partnership with you know, I think we need to consult with industry. I think it's a partnership with the Department of of Labor. Again, if you have a goal and an outcome that you want to get, our you know, we need to what is reasonable? What is efficient? What what makes sense? How do how do we look at that? I think and, again, I don't know what the burden is on the industry, and I really think you should also talk to them about that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Hear from them if you know. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I guess I just say, you know, because I don't wanna I don't wanna keep going. You know? This sounds like a much bigger question, but it does give me pause and give me some level of concern about how we do state contracting for major projects and millions of dollars. I'm not laying this at your feet, but from what I'm hearing, there are lots of different places where things live and there are questions and concerns about record keeping. Mhmm. And I I'm not understanding. I mean, I think this could help. My biggest concern with this section and and in general from what I'm hearing is that we are trying to give contractors certainty. We are trying to have, you know, really strong transparent practices with state dollars. And what I'm hearing is that's a hardship for our agency to Yeah. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: I I that's not my intent. Okay. There first of all, our contracting division is very solid, and the record keeping there is very clear and the processes and the documents And it's private and [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: be held or it's public it's public information? [Witness Wanda Manoli]: It's public information once a contract's been issued, and then there's certain guidelines, obviously, around that proprietary and and other things. But we our bidding process is public. Correct. Our bidding you know, we do sole sources occasionally. Mhmm. We've done well, I think, on all of our audits. And so it is a very procurement has best practices and very specific guidelines, and the Department of Buildings and General Services complies with all of those, and the contractors do. And I think if, you know, experiencing going through a bidding process and what they have to do to respond to it, it's very detailed. So I am very comfortable and confident that our records are there, and they're they're well maintained, and they're retained. This is specific to wages, and that's what we're we're talking about. And and how do you bring that into that system, and how do you maintain it, and who maintains it, and what's the impact on our future cost of construction because our prices are set at this point in the middle of the bill. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Given our time right now, I I I would I think that it sounds like you'd be willing to look at actually, looking at this portfolio and its impact on your office and what would be required, what its impact would be, what it's what would be required. I I don't I I you know, to me, the this seems like something that we should absolutely be requiring. It seems to me a common sense thing. It's commonly done in many other states, so we have other models to look at. So I I think this is this is great conversation. Clearly, the the first piece of section eleven is a bigger conversation for us to have. But I think on this, we wanna have as much clarity on people who are working under these contracts, that they're working in classified certified fashion, and that that is submitted, which by these big employers who are doing the work for the state of Vermont, it does. My guess is they're having to keep these records for IRS already and for other states that they're working in. So I you know, this is not gonna be I don't think if you were in on Mozart. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: So I I I can't speak for for industry. I can talk about you know, I've again, reading the bill for the first time, the impact, you're asking me if I can do this. And I don't have enough information to say how I would deliver this, what it would look like, what the outcome would be. Right. Because we simply we don't know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And so the time frame on this, I I don't recall what our time frame is on the implementation of this. And I [Assistant]: I think it's scheduled for July one. Right? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's just it's so we could there is a conceivable time frame on this that we could do as well in terms of its implementation. So thank you, Wanda. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Florida model question whether or not we wanna do [Chair Alison Clarkson]: it at all. That's a discussion for the committee. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: As we transition, I think, from government, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: it seems like a little bit Yes. We're moving that. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: To to the industry. Before we leave the government piece, we keep hearing, you know, we need to figure out why we're doing this, why we're doing this. At bottom, I think it really needs to be underscored so that people make good and fair wages for working on state contracts. We actually heard about a state house project where Yeah. You know, someone was concerned that they weren't making good and fair wages or high consistency in their work. So I feel better if state government is a model employer and that we are aware [Chair Alison Clarkson]: that I [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: think the question, though, obviously, is what is a good and fair wage in Vermont? But we The second question is I know we've heard this discussion that a lot of other states are doing it, but are they doing it well? We've looked at a lot of things that other states are doing, and they're doing horribly. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So maybe we need to have a longer conversation, but I just wanna make sure we're clear. This isn't just so we have more records to to swim in and state government. You know, this is because this has been a tool that other states and the federal government have used to make sure that their values are actually lived out in the direct projects that they have involvement with. Right. We're not asking. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: This is a as as I said, this is a much longer conversation than trying to rush through something here Sure. Just before crossing. Sure. Which I would not benefit to. Fair. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Matt, you're on deck. [Speaker 12 ]: Well, thanks for having me. Good morning, committee. I'm Matt Muscredi with the Associated Builders and Contractors of Mayanter, Vermont. I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee and talk about your labor bills. I've got two here in particular that I'll bring up, but just I think you all know who I am. But for people out there in cyberspace, ABC is a trade association that represents commercial construction companies and all of the moving parts inside of both buildings and projects that they work on. We do a lot of work with state agencies as well as we do a lot of work in the public sector. We have, you know, companies in the area like PC, DEW, HP companies. They do work all the way up and down the East Coast, and they're winning awards for things like being employee owned companies, taking care of their staff, and paying them above, way beyond some of these prevailing wages that we're talking about today. So I do wanna just come in and address some of these things here. And I don't think that I have the time to answer all the questions that I've heard over the last hour come up. So I'm I'm I'm certainly ready to go over to the house, maybe a little bit more time there, maybe a little bit more time next year, but I think there are some pretty big implications that we'd like to bring up. The first one is in six five two. Yep. Yep. I didn't plan to come in and talk about the record keeping piece, but I will briefly just bring that up. This this process already exists within the Davis Bacon reporting. Right. A little bit different than you have it laid out here in that they're not doing weekly reports. Right. They're actually doing a wage summary at the end when they hand in their packet. Maybe Judy can explain a little more detail about that process, but they actually do submit those wages. And then the Davis Bacon system actually does the statewide national survey once every three to five years, and that's where they actually determine what those wages are to go forward. And that's what ends up on our Davis Bacon survey here. So so that is happening already. I will say that it's not the silver bullet to dealing with misclassification that we might think it is. You know, having worked within the construction industry for pretty close to eighty years now, I never heard of a misclassification that's happened with an AOT project for the reasons that you're explaining. So if there is evidence of that, it'd be new for me to find that. And in fact, we did work a couple of years ago on a misclassification bill, which actually expanded authority over to the attorney general's office if the Department of Labor was unable or unwilling to take that case on and then gave a little bit more rights to the afflicted individual and or people that would represent them on their complaints. So we have gone a long way on that. And I can tell you from industry perspective, you know, we take it at, you know, a very high level of seriousness the way that we treat, pay, and take care of our staff that are out there. So the other part of the bill, I think we [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So can we Yeah. Can we stay there for a second? Yeah. On that piece, you're saying that it would create an undue additional burden that your members don't face in New York, Massachusetts, and other places that [Speaker 12 ]: No. No. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the way that you have that section laid out with the weekly reports and data [Member David Weeks]: because of [Speaker 12 ]: there might be an easier way to do that than calling Wanda once a week. Yeah. You know, I I enjoy speaking with Wanda, but I know she's very busy. Mhmm. So maybe, you know, the further conversation that we have on this and this may go to my other somewhat challenge with six fifty two. Now if you do actually just find a way that's reasonable to do that some type of report, then we will have a a very accurate wage standard in Vermont that we can work with currently under the prevailing wage. They're required to, in the addendums in their their contracts require that they are testing to keep those records and that they are audible by the agency if that question was to ever arise. They do already sort of keep those records, but not in the way that you're showing me here. So I would be happy to have a further conversation about how to streamline it and [Chair Alison Clarkson]: make it easier. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That's kinda what I was getting at. It sounds not standardized No. From everything we've looked [Witness Wanda Manoli]: at now. [Speaker 12 ]: No. And, I mean, that's just it's the nature of doing business with the government that they're you know, you wanna know that we're doing the right thing, and that's what it is. And, you know, Davis Bacon and prevailing wage have long been known as a a good solution to ensure raising wages in our industry. So, you know, that's something that we're we're proud to be a part of. The other part of six five two that we just have a challenge with is the the change of the prevailing wage statute. We actually don't think there's anything wrong with the prevailing wage statute. We believe it's working the way it should be. It's based on numbers that are actually being paid here in the state of Vermont. And I've got a lot of experience working with this as a a business consultant where companies have run into situations where we've had maybe no determination. So what we're really talking about here is a determination for state construction projects. Right? And that's we're talking about general carpentry work, building work, things that are commonly done within the state that we do. But we have in the state of Vermont, in the construction field, in in the private construction field, less than two percent employee participation in unions. So we just don't have accurate data around the state of Vermont to be able to bring in what it and and those contracts, if they do exist, would be considered outliers compared to what happened within the rest of the state. So what Davis Bacon actually does recognize this, this, policy within the Davis Bacon rule that if there isn't a classification that exists within the state, they will go elsewhere. But Davis Bacon in Vermont is primarily road and bridge work, heavy civil work, things like that. Occasionally, they'll do a courthouse. But I've run into situations over the years where they'll be like a weird classification. Paver [Witness Matt Musgrave]: or [Speaker 12 ]: a worker or a equipment operator. It's someone that does something very unique, and and Judy probably has examples of these, where you have somebody that does a very unique job classification, and we don't have that wage rate here in Vermont. And And we have to go to places like Portsmouth, New Hampshire and look at the union rates there, which is federal money and their federal wages being paid out on those sites, and they're often way out of whack with what we're paying here to the point where we have supers walk superintendents walking off projects because there are people that are working, making more money than they have, and they just started on the job. So that's where our concern is with this is we don't have the statistical data here in Vermont just to say, let's go out to what the union rate is because it represents such a small sliver of the business that we're doing here in Vermont. So if you looked at your reporting recommendation, that may be a way to get to more accurate numbers, but it's pretty simple right now. I can send you to our job board. You know, AGC has a job board. We can show you what contractors are paying right now, and it's it's it's amazing what offerings they are making, the people that are out there that are employed. So we would oppose that change in six five two to the prevailing wage standard. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: think it's fair to say, given all we have heard and all we are about to hear additionally, that the the prevailing wage conversation is larger. I think the focus from me, anyway, is on section g and see if we can get that to the housework for the work this year. [Speaker 12 ]: Yeah. I mean, if you if you're looking for statistical data, that's a survey. Right? So I'm [Chair Alison Clarkson]: happy to talk. Certified wages gives you data. [Speaker 12 ]: Yeah. I'm happy to participate in that conversation. So we [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm just gonna [Witness Michael Harrington]: I just wanted to add to what Matt said. Yeah. You know, if if the ultimate intent is to combat misclassification, I think there are probably easier and more practical ways to do that. So the Department of Labor would be happy to work with Matt and with commissioner Manoli on ways we could to do [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: that and We would help. Recommendations. So just wanted to [Chair Alison Clarkson]: say that. Great. Thank you. [Speaker 12 ]: I was happy to try to make things better. [Member David Weeks]: You having [Chair Alison Clarkson]: another thought on another bill? [Speaker 12 ]: Yes. I have just three three three more slight objections to six five three. So one [Chair Alison Clarkson]: shift six five three. Different draft. [Speaker 12 ]: That over [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: the six five [Chair Alison Clarkson]: three. That's the second. [Speaker 12 ]: Yeah. So, I mean, the first one, commissioner Harrington brought up as well as a good good cause termination. That would be a striking change to our, labor law here in Vermont. It kinda flies in the face of years and years of negotiation that we've had, over unemployment practices. Our unemployment law is, in fact, set up for those situations where someone didn't have that just cause. So currently in today's marketplace, if I can terminate someone with cause and I say, mister Musgrave, I'm letting you go because you didn't show up on time for work today and we we lost the job because of you. I'm letting you go. That's a legitimate business reason for me going. And at that point in time, I'm out on my own as an employee. I have to go find another job. I can't go to commissioner Harrington and have unemployment insurance. However, if my employer walked in one day, just had a bad bad attitude, didn't like me that day, and just said, Matt, get out of here. I don't like you. That's what the unemployment trust fund was set up for us to protect those people that were fired without cause or were laid off beyond their control. And in fact, there are some other expansions during COVID that, I believe that we made as well to that. We did. So that's really what that system is set up for, and there is also a huge dowry of money that exists. I believe that trust fund is around six hundred million dollars right now. And through our negotiations after the I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: don't think so. Where is this? [Witness Michael Harrington]: Well, at at pre pandemic, it was at, like, five twenty. Now it's at three fifty. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, you gotta read it funny faster. Yeah. [Witness Michael Harrington]: I can't. So No. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: No. No. No. To me. [Speaker 12 ]: So point So thank you, mister Harrington. So but in that negotiation that we had, which was the twenty twenty fix, they also retargeted where that's going to go. And I believe that was close to one billion dollars is where the new target is. [Witness Michael Harrington]: No. I I well, I don't think we did a a finalized target. There was a lot of conversation about what solvency means, right, and what healthy means. And I think we would have a much lower number on that. But I don't think we ever formalize that through the committee. I think that's it. I think there was a lot of conversation. Okay. [Speaker 12 ]: My whole [Chair Alison Clarkson]: life is far. Clearly a big a bigger conversation about the six hours of working together that we still have this week. Correct. If not, a little bit more. I'm gonna try and get more out of this committee. But at the moment, we have only six hours to do this. So [Speaker 12 ]: Saturday, Okay. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Well, let's see. Just [Speaker 12 ]: Yeah. Real quick, I can get through noncompete agreements. We're a little concerned about that. There are places that it is appropriate that it would be a noncompete agreement. And one of the things that comes to mind right now is that we're you're considering a right to repair bill that would include electronics and agricultural equipment. When we start having that conversation and you talk about a noncompete agreement, you're almost at this point, if you pass r to r and a noncompete, you're essentially asking manufacturers and equipment dealers or technology dealers to train their own competition who then can turn around and just go right into competition with proprietary information that can impact your company. So so I'll leave that along. We And [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we have sadly not been able to book the the testimony and witnesses on this as we would have liked. And so I think this is a conversation for after crossover, a continuing one. We have a whole Wyoming right now. [Speaker 12 ]: Great. And then last but not least, and I can move on, the right to sit, otherwise known as the Seinfeld class. And I I'd say that in chess because there was an episode in the nineteen nineties, a a television show called Seinfeld where one of the characters was concerned that a security guard at a retail outlet didn't have the opportunity to sit down. So forever, I will refer to this as the Seinfeld five. Okay. So the right decision is important, and Vermont's law is very specific that, employers must allow time for employees to take breaks for food, rest, and or restroom breaks. So that's very clear on the law today. And on the other side of that, I think what we're trying to accomplish with this this this policy per se is trying to keep people safe so that they're not becoming injured so that they're not being hurt by their employers. And I'm going to tell you that OSHA is way ahead of you on this. OSHA has a number of clauses within their CFR. One of those being the OSHA five day general duty clause, which says that employer is required to remove all obstacles or exchanges that an employee would face out on the job site. So if that employee was that security guard working in that retail store and standing up for over four hours starting to hurt his or her back, they would have to actually be allowed to chair by their employer to prevent them from being injured. So this is already covered, and FOSHA would be the source of enforcement for that. So we would not k. Support that in the middle. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I guess so. If it's already covered, is there a problem [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You see with with enumerating that right? That's often what people ask us to do is when something's buried in OSHA law, you know, it's not as obvious to folks. And this was a constituent request, you know, which we try to really fully flush out, and a lot of people will ask us to enumerate rights because that's more of a common way to understand, you know, our laws. [Speaker 12 ]: So I guess where my concern to that would be is, yes, I understand that people wanna see something enumerated, but let's start defining terms because all of a sudden, it's very short little applause becomes a much larger term. Who is required to provide a chair? Am I required as the employer to bring a chair, or is that an employee allowed to bring a chair? What is the chair that the employee looks like that brings to the site? How long is that period of time that that person's allowed to sit down before it becomes unreasonable? What's the definition of unreasonable in terms of this law? So just saying that someone has a right to sit is an implication that doesn't necessarily recognize someone's situation that they may be in danger as a result of standing. Meaning, if there's no problem there, why would we write a lot? If there was a problem, there's already the OSHA general duty clause to protect the worker. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: After four hours? [Speaker 12 ]: No. No. Not Maybe [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: go ahead. [Speaker 12 ]: It it it could be thirty minutes. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And it could be temporary. The need might be temporary. The need might not have to be a permanent contract. [Speaker 12 ]: So that's that's the general duty clause. The general duty clause allows not only an employee, but someone that's going by a job site can actually file a complaint with OSHA. The general duty clause is really broad to protect people from being injured on the job. And that's really the intent of what that five a clause is. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So in if if that's [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: case, if the employee says, you know, I do need to I do need to sit down so I know it's an insured who provided the chair. [Speaker 12 ]: That's a good question. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So in the same We're not complicated. [Speaker 12 ]: We're not we're not we're not. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: No. But I guess, like, does does OSHA require that the employer provide the chair in that instance? [Speaker 12 ]: So is that is that person being injured? So now Well well if that person's being injured, we need [Speaker 13 ]: to find them a chair [Speaker 12 ]: and sit them down. That's correct. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So the employer finds okay. [Speaker 12 ]: Yeah. So just like if I was to require you to go to a situation that you would require some sort of protection or a personal protective equipment, like a hard hat or a vest or goggles [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Mhmm. [Speaker 12 ]: That's employer required. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. So But [Speaker 12 ]: we don't have to [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: answer that. Right? [Speaker 12 ]: Right. Which which means we would need to write the law down. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Sure. But there's not new question that arise if you write if you enumerate the right to fit. There you those questions are answered under OSHA. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You're thinking it's underscoring that's not necessary is what I think. [Speaker 12 ]: I think you're underscoring it, and you're providing an opportunity for now it's just you're bringing an attorney into the situation on this. And I don't think that that's something that Aren't [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: attorneys involved in OSHA [Chair Alison Clarkson]: all the time? [Speaker 12 ]: Well, they they have inspectors that are not necessarily attorneys. And then when you get a when you get a complaint filed to OSHA, then you go and deal with the OSHA director. I don't know his status as an attorney or not. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Like I'm at risk of, like, becoming a client health care service. It was a show I did not tend to watch, but, like, I'm having trouble understanding why the the right to sit is is threatening folks. And I actually think it could take an attorney out of the situation Yes. Because because someone could, like, just be saying, I, you know, I have this right, so I'm gonna sit down now. I brought my own little camp chair. [Speaker 12 ]: I just I'll I'll just leave it if we [Chair Alison Clarkson]: don't sit down. I I I got that. We're clear on that, but I have Dirk who I think is has some info input on this. [Witness Michael Harrington]: You should point out that Dirk is not only the director, but he is the former general counsel for [Speaker 14 ]: the Department of Labor as well. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And for both are are you responsible for both of them? [Witness Dirk Anderson]: I'm director of [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: He is. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Occupational safety and health. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Yay. He is a huge research team at this moment. So, Dirk, fill us in. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Okay. Dirk Anderson, Department of Labor. Matt is correct. There is something known as the general duty clause, which provide which provides that an employer has an ongoing obligation to protect its employees from reasonably from known or reasonably recognizable hazards. So if it becomes apparent that an employee needs to sit down, the employer has an obligation to let [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: How does that become apparent? [Speaker 12 ]: It could [Witness Dirk Anderson]: it could be the employee saying I'm I'm woozy. I'm short of breath. I you know, my legs are killing me. Whatever it whatever it may be. I mean, general duty clause is is is broadly written to cover reasonably discoverable workplace hazards that are not otherwise specifically enumerated in the CFRs. But [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: but what [Chair Alison Clarkson]: if it's not a hazard? What if it's a preventive measure? I mean, because not I I I would assume that the right to sit was something that wasn't necessarily a hazard in the workplace. It was a a prevention method for an individual. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: I'm sort of [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Process thinking off Yeah. Thinking off [Witness Dirk Anderson]: the cuff here because I did not come prepared to discuss this. But, you know, whether an employee needs to sit down is going to be employee specific. Right? It's it's going to depend on the health. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But the but I think what this is saying is it shouldn't be employer specific. If the employee feels they need to sit down [Chair Alison Clarkson]: should be able to [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: they would be they would have that right without having to say to their employer, my legs are killing me. Can I sit down? And and this I believe the bill has a provision that says unless standing is required for your for your job. Is that right, Sophie? Right. I mean, so or does [Assistant]: it push a hazard? [Witness Dirk Anderson]: Except for the work cannot properly be performed in a sitting position. So it does have an exception. Right. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So I guess it's like, you're what you're saying actually makes me feel more strongly about this provision, which is that it's up to the employer to decide if the person is in a position where it's unsafe for them to stay at or not. Whereas this is saying, I I don't need to stand up to do my job, and I'm gonna sit down. Maybe this is a Seinfeld thing. Like, what is the problem with that? Why is that someone's not telling me something about why this is such a problem. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Again, I'm not [Witness Dirk Anderson]: I I didn't come in here with position on this particular section. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Does DOL have a position on this section? [Witness Michael Harrington]: We don't. None of us. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So you're neutral, you would say, or you haven't? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, let me [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Kendall, just identify. Yes. Sorry. Kendall Smith, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor. Again, I just I is are you hearing that employers [Witness Matt Musgrave]: are actually denying their employees right [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: to sit down? So that this was a constituent request. So there are times when we dream things up in this building that other states are doing. I know that, but this was a constituent request. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Do we know if that's a broad issue or just one individual that had this experience? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I guess I'm I'm failing to understand. I think we've spent more time on this because of opposition. That's unclear to me versus just the this, in my mind, actually taking some bureaucracy out of the situation and someone just being able to sit down. Pause. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I wanna write to Stan because I said too much in this [Witness Matt Musgrave]: I know. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I was I feel like that's You have that argument in and of itself. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Like this [Witness Michael Harrington]: We're happy to switch with [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. About [Member Thomas Chittenden]: it from the same perspective of the deputy there is, I'm not opposed to this. It seems reasonable. I'm just curious. Is this a widespread issue? I mean, is this just one person that had an instance and they go through VOSHA? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: We deal with that a lot in this committee. Though, I would say, like, this is a committee where we have people who don't wanna come forward and say, you know, I I ended up injuring myself because I didn't feel comfortable. I didn't feel like my boss would treat me the same way if I sat down. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Do you have reason to believe that's a widespread issue? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I don't know what you mean by widespread, but I guess [Member Thomas Chittenden]: What do your constituent [Chair Alison Clarkson]: if there [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: are wide are we gonna have a widespread issue where people all of a sudden start, like, sitting down in the middle of a worksite because we passed this? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: When they to elaborate on your constituent's concern, where were they coming from? Did you describe in general anonymous terms what the circumstances were? Did they ask for a chair and they were bluntly denied? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: They did not wanna I mean, a lot of people reach out. We we have a hard time finding people who are on unemployment who wanna talk to us. I mean, there is a lot of stigma around someone feeling like they need an accommodation in their workplace to perform their duties well or safely or to their needs. And so I just wanna make that clear if folks are new to this room. We we just as much need a reason that something is going to create a unsafe or [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I just wanna know the problem we're solving. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Possibly working condition. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm just not sure there's a problem we're solving if this if we don't have widespread concerns. But I don't know I didn't have that constituent interaction. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. May I just Vermont had this law, as we heard. Vermont had this law, and it was repealed. It was passed in, I think, nineteen fifteen and was repealed in sixty nine or in seventy. I can't remember which, but sir, you're the expert. Yeah. So I have to take my That's [Witness Dirk Anderson]: three days even my ten years. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I know that. I appreciate that. I'm just curious. You know, if we had this, that seems sensible and common sense Even in nineteen fifteen, people have needed to sit. And it's a it's a common [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: There was [Chair Alison Clarkson]: a Seems [Witness Wanda Manoli]: like a common sense thing to do. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Did we have [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Vosha in nineteen fifteen? I mean, the When [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: was Vosha? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Vosha? When was Vosha? [Witness Michael Harrington]: So So there were no pretty accidents. There were very limited protection. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So was Vosges then established in sort of that period of time? Vermont became [Witness Dirk Anderson]: a Vosges state plan state at seventy two, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think. Okay. So in that period, roughly. Also, what's what's what's the tax [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So is the concern that because OSHA covered like, OSHA covers a lot of these things, we don't need to enumerate them separately because I actually worry about all kinds of federal provisions right now. So if you're saying, hey. OSHA provisions right now. So if you're saying, hey, OSHA at bottom is, you know, going to help us take care of these concerns. I mean, I trust Dirk, but we could hear tomorrow that federal OSHA has been disbanded. We could hear tomorrow they've let go of half of their workers. So I'm pretty comfortable saying this is a good time to enumerate some of our rights because otherwise, OSHA is simply a rider on OSHA. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Well, if if that OSHA was disbanded tomorrow, that would not change Vermont's program, just for awareness. And what those laws would still exist, those provisions would still exist. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And so One thing. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I I just have a concern. Every time somebody comes to us with a personal issue, which may or may not be significant, may or may not be covered by other laws or regulations, then we go and pass another law. That's why DeLant's laws consisted of one volume in nineteen forty seven, and they consist of thirty three plus appendices now. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well case passed a law for everything. [Speaker 14 ]: I Are we dealing with a [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: problem that really needs solving? Oh. We've got so many things to do that we're meeting early and staying late to get the things done, and we should do and recognize what's important and what's not. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That is a question we ask ourselves all the time here. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And Well, we don't answer it, though. Will coming early and staying [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I would say we had cash we had cashless transactions last year, and we all thought, wow. It's really common sense to require that you accept cash. We heard really compelling evidence from the field. We didn't let we stopped the conversation because we heard compelling evidence from the field that there were that we would be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Right. What I'm but from everything I'm hearing now, I'm not hearing a compelling reason why this right should not be enumerated. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, again, I'm just because I'm say as you talk to the light, is there a a recognition that there's some jobs that require standing in order to do the job? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And that's covered in this bill. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And that's already covered, and it's covered in in the way. Thank you, Matt. I think we're gonna move on. We're gonna have this committee discussion. This is an let's conversation right now. [Speaker 12 ]: I just thought that that [Witness Michael Harrington]: would request for virtual program. Like, that's the This [Witness Matt Musgrave]: does feel like a fine fella [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: in the phone. Ethics. I just thought it was [Witness Matt Musgrave]: really clear. I I think her enumerating rights [Chair Alison Clarkson]: is not it's not bigger than you. Thank you. I think we are now going to pivot to Bill to Bill Driscoll, and then we're gonna go to Judy. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right? Yeah. That's a great. Thanks. Yeah. So about this for a decision. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Thanks. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I appreciate that for me to testify. William Driscoll, Associated Industries Vermont, right, today, from, like, the manufacturing sector. I'll try to be relatively brief. You've heard a number of concerns raised about these various provisions from other business and the federal stakeholders. So try not to be too redundant. I think our primary concerns with the first several provisions of draft six six two are primarily the cost representative adding to to employers, particularly through through payroll costs. You know, I didn't we don't know yet the, I guess, scope or the extent of cost of of changing the overtime rules. But it's unclear that is that there's I'm guessing I'm telling you just to buy that change we made, and we would certainly want to know have a better idea of how much that would add to the payroll cost of employer's before it would seem to be I see. With on provisions. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's the that's six fifty two. It's after the minimum wage for workers. Act overtime? No. The two people. So section one Is the ad minimum wage. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Has the effect of ad minimum wage, but also by chain by changing the sort of treatment of salary to employees, it has the effect of paging the track [Chair Alison Clarkson]: of of that. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Are you are you talking about more broader than the piece Yes. Broader than the ag? Right. Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Section I think sec yeah. Section one kind of has [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Right. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Multiple effects as as I really And [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: then as I understand that that I [Speaker 15 ]: I don't know if that's been discussed [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: in here. That was a that was a section to backstop federal Supreme Court rolling back of new overtime standards. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Is [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: that right, Sophie? It it never went into effect. It never went after. Well, the Department [Assistant]: of Labor did enact an increase back in July of twenty four, and then there was another increase that was supposed to go into effect January one of twenty five. And that both both pieces got rolled back in full three records. So it wasn't a disagreement. Correct? Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right. And, yeah, we we we wouldn't have supported that that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: that that all on the line. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: There's Okay. In that position, it would be that it would be the same. Similarly, obviously, getting our current concerns about how the requirement for paying out accrued vacation days are obviously added cost, unpredictable or difficult to manage cost. Feel like the the only thing I would wanna add to that is it'd be interesting to figure out what this could mean retroactively. In other words, would this expose employers to payroll cost that they that that they had no way to anticipate a plan for because up till now, it wasn't required to pay out of those those accrual days. And I think [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So you're saying senate going forward? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, say [Chair Alison Clarkson]: not do it. Forward. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Right. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I'm saying that the retroactivity is yet another But problem with [Chair Alison Clarkson]: With the vacation? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. Deal [Chair Alison Clarkson]: with the retroactivity. Gotcha. We could deal with the retroactivity, but on on the whole, not think people should be paid what they've earned. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, if you're talking about paid vacation days, what approval policies, things like that, those are all variables that could be very different from company to company in a very Right. Part of how employers and employees come to an agreement as to what compensation should be and what what vacation policies should be. I think I would caution that I think that if this were to go in effect, you're creating some perverse incentives. I think it was already mentioned before the before the meeting break that this could actually encourage employees to not take breaks or to take vacation when they should put their their health. I think, you know, you had mentioned that earlier, senator. And conversely, to the extent that it is an increased cost and a predict potentially unpredictable cost, you're you're creating incentives for employers not to offer accrual or not to offer a vacation base because of the cost entailed with this cost of risk and tail business. So that's, you know, something to take into [Member Thomas Chittenden]: consideration. Theories are somewhat good pointed that if I was an employer and had to pay these things out, I might more stringent policies where they expire at the end of the year. So you have to use them or lose them. I do want people to get paid for the vacation dates that they accumulate, but I don't know if we can legislate that when there's no consistent reporting mechanism and many jobs require different functions that have different flexibilities incorporated into their handbooks. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. And many policies require that you do it during the year to grow. Atacious point, we need people taking time of problems for a whole bunch of reasons. So, you know, it's I would hope that, actually, employers would be encouraging people to take their vacation time so that they all maintain their mental health. And we help our tourism industry even in other states Yeah. And countries. Keep keep going, though. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So our biggest concerns with BDZ. Workers not changed to incorporate or include health health insurance within the the rate base. There's a direct concern, obviously, of the cost that that would entail. You've already heard about the NCCI estimate about up to nearly seven percent increase in overall cost. You noted that that seven percent is a pretty big number when we're talking about things that impact workers' comp in years. That's a that's a sizable increase. But also keep in mind that that's, you know, that's generally over the over over, overall change. Obviously, there'll be differences between employers that offer insurance and employers that don't offer insurance. So the actual impact for those that do can be quite a bit more. And, again, your advice in creating a it becomes a liability, and it's and and it would create an incentive to not offer health insurance for those companies that may be on the whether they're offering that or looking at the the value of their of their benefits. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We also heard that fifty percent of employees get health insurance, but that's that's included in their pay at you know? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But that but including it in the calculation of the of the wait phase And that's included. Increasing the cost of workers' comp, and that that gave an incentive to not offer insurance, so we'll avoid that in different calls. [Speaker 12 ]: And I think in cost of [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the sensitive issue, particularly workers' comp, you know, the there's a lag in statistics. So the most recent numbers I saw was from twenty twenty one, but they were pretty consistent with that with how they've been over the over the years. Vermont has the highest workers' comp rates in New England, nearly sixty two percent higher than the average of the other five New England states. Nationally, we do a little bit better. We're at eight highest, more than thirty six percent above the average of the other states in the country. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think you have to look at the what we do for a living here in state two in large measure, given one of our largest industries is wood products and forest industry. I mean, there are some some we've discussed this in the past for Yeah. Why this is high. It's not [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: It's certainly high because our benefits are much higher than than That's is generally the case. Right. So but regardless, we're very high cost. And and so adding this additional cost would be concerning. And it's also you know, I'm not aware we're not aware. I'm trying to find if any other state actually does this. We have not succeeded, so I don't know if any other state does. I'd be surprised if any does. It's also fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying principles, purposes of workers' compensation to include that. In addition to, you know, direct medical care related to an injury, the monetary side workers' compensation is intended to provide a partial wage replacement for wages loss, which is supposed to be supposed to be a partial replacement of basically what you take home in terms of money. And that's not what health insurance is. To the extent that health insurance is continued for workers' comp recipients, This would be basically adding a cost or compensation for something that they have not lost in those circumstances. And even not be, you know, too philosophical about it, but this would be a fundamental change in how health insurance is actually considered relative to wages. The entire foundation for employer provided health insurance is based upon the fact that health insurance is not considered for employers, and employees are not taxed. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I I would say that I think we've already identified this as a bigger issue that we'll be discussing further. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So I I wouldn't want you to think that we didn't care about it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. No. I know you care about it. Section g. Okay. That's submission of certified x. I think that is the one piece in the survey. Oh, I'm sorry. Workers' comp. Right. List on workers' comp. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So the other [Chair Alison Clarkson]: two The other pieces that are included in the workers' comp section [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I was about to say. My general one is saying is not sure that any of them are particularly needed, but in terms of specific issues, I mean, they just in terms of time and expertise, I'll just take over the DBTN. That's probably on here. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But are the not the best. If we could I'd love your input on on the on section seven, which is the paying people in a time and fashion for their workers' comp. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right. So I don't know if if that is still a problem relative I mean, when that's come up before You've [Chair Alison Clarkson]: heard the testimony in this committee. It's clearly still a problem. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I have not heard that testimony, actually. I'm afraid [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you could go back and look at it. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yes. And, again, I think that the insurance folks would feel it seems to be bad. And they will. Yeah. Section eight. You know, you have to consider the facility. Just briefly, we just generally don't support. And I know there's some people in the room that rely on a different take on it, and that's fine. We can agree and disagree. When you when you have workers when you have UI covering seasonal employment in the gaps, My our concern is that generally that's using the UI trust fund to subsidize those business models, so it's just not approach it's not what UI is designed for. So Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you. That and s thirty seven, which is the UI for support school support staff. Well, I think both of those are bigger conversations, and we will particularly in this year where we're looking at education costs and not trying to sort of additional costs on education, I think that conversation's for another day. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. So Nine and ten, we don't really sure trust reading. They just don't have the finishing on that. When I checked in eleven, I would refer to Matt Westbury with any other folks who on the contracting side, they're willing to weigh in on that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. That makes sense. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: At level employments, you've, you know, you've heard the basic arguments. We we would agree to those. You know, it's a good question of fundamental rights for employers to manage their their operations and to avoid unnecessary litigation or or requiring decisions. And after the point about what does that mean for the for the UI system and or even existing things, actually, the interest of your employer have not had left out. Noncompete, we just believe, again, that's something that should be left up to the negotiation between employees and employers in terms of what kind of agreements that you need to agree to. You know, they've heard that. I know Austin Davis has testified quite a bit on that. I just want us to previous one of the points I have raised. Right. So it's just for history. So, yes, I've never heard about this until this was introduced. So I did look into it a little bit couple weeks ago. Most states, I believe, almost all states, I think, had one. We were on the turn if [Chair Alison Clarkson]: they At the turn of the sun. I know. And then we got rid of them. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Late eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds, and it was generally because women were entering the workforce, and people were thought women needed to be very nearby for for various reasons. In fact, several of the states, the right to say, only applied to women. So I think I would have to speculate that the wave of states repealing that law, you know, later in the century kind of was maybe updating attitudes about how men and women fare in [Chair Alison Clarkson]: one place. I think there must be some interplay between OSHA and the the the protections and [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: It didn't really seem like it seemed more like [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, it's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: okay. I don't wanna yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But they so they need more work out. [Witness Michael Harrington]: Yeah. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And and they're like, they would say, like, you know, whatever OSHA obligations there are or or are not and how disputes are resolved, that already exists. I'm just making especially, like, for manufacturing. You know, there's language in here about you don't have to do it if if it causes a hazard in the workplace or whatnot. I I would just hate to see a situation where it's just another grounds or or if our basis for disputes about whether or not, you know, chairs would be a hazard and then Right. You know, manufacturers for or whatnot. That's this is the best life of all of my [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you. Sure. Any questions for Matt? I mean, for Bill. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: You can ask Matt. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I put him here. We ask bad questions all the time. Great. Thank you so much, Bill. Sure. And we're gonna move to Judy. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, I'm sorry. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: My apologies. One more. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I think there's one make a process pitch here. I know there's talk about trying to move this quickly just to get it over to the house and keep the conversation going. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The pieces of it, as I've heard, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: not Well, even just piece you know, especially in the first year of a biennium, I would just make a pitch that really if it's not ready, it's not ready. And if you haven't had time to do the work, you haven't had the time to do the work, you should continue to do it regard you know, even if it misses cross over, that's the way the system works. Just as a general principle, I mean, that's why that's why two chambers consider legislation, not just one. So Thank you. Make that process pitch Thomas. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: To process comment, and that's not I'll just direct it to the witness. But as much as we cross the red line exist, there there is a workforce bid coming over from the house. Sure. [Witness Al Gordon]: If we [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: get We'll [Chair Alison Clarkson]: go to the sky back. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Consider this this session. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We already have a workforce built to build that. I'm just [Member Thomas Chittenden]: feeling less pressure to get any [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: of this out today. Thank you for that. Sure. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Great. Thanks. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Actually, welcome. We'll be back at ten thirty. Okay. Great. And is he Zooming or in person? He's on Zoom. Okay. Zoom. Perfect. Judy, welcome. I'm [Witness Matt Musgrave]: not sure if [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Judy, this is your first time in this committee, I believe. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: In this [Chair Alison Clarkson]: evening. And I don't not sure you know all of us, so we should introduce ourselves. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm Tom Chittenden. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: What district do [Member Thomas Chittenden]: you know? Chittenden. [Speaker 12 ]: It worked [Chair Alison Clarkson]: out. That works out. I know that works out pretty well. And also represents Chittenden Southeast. And I and Allison Clarkson and I represent one of the three represents the Windsor District. Randy Brock, Franklin County, and North of Grand Isle. Good morning. Good morning. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Good morning, council. Absolutely. I'm Judy Durocher. I work for Jay McDonald. We're a highway and heavy contractor in the state of Vermont. This is our fiftieth year in business, so we've been very familiar with the agency of transportation projects. Right. I'm gonna speak specifically about the prevailing wage requirement that's in this proposal. And I've worked for Jay and McDonald for forty years, and I've submitted certified payrolls to the Vermont Agency of Transportation for forty years. Thanks. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We're grateful. We have So they somehow are dealing with them. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: The Vermont Agency of Transportation is the any contract, as I understand it, that's federal or state funded is required to consider the date of state and wage rates. Right. And I have, per highway road for road work, there's fourteen counties, and there's fourteen different sets of wage rates. It encompasses operators, whether bulldozer or crane or mechanics or flaggers. If we work in a heavy construction situation, which is you think is similar to highway, we ran into that in the town of St. Johnsbury that we did a long term contract. We weren't, excuse me, able to use the highway rates. We had to use heavy rates. Those are actually a lot higher. And as Matt explained, those state of spanking rates are prepared by the federal government based on surveys that they do among contractors and businesses. The our reporting, we have to do a certified payroll report to the state of Vermont within seven days of paying our employees, and all of our subcontractors are required to do the same thing. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: I'm the first one that sees those from subs, and I'm making sure that their rates are matching the Davis Bacon rates. So that's first check. We submit them to our resident engineers and the office of civil rights and labor. Sonia Bovey in the department of the agency of transportation office of civil rights and labor. She also reviews all these. So there's at least three or four layers of people that are reviewing the rates to make sure we're paying our people Right. The proper rate. If we're noted that we're not, then restitution is made to those employees. The the list of things that are required on page seventeen, we have to give the name of the employee. The state has now required and the feds, I believe, to eliminate the Social Security number, eliminate the address of the employee, and just have the name of the employee and the task that they're doing and their wages. Part of the if if there's not a wage classification in our county for a particular task, then we have another form that we have to submit to the state to request an additional wage rate classification. That is submitted to Sonia Bove, and then she submits it on to the federal department of labor. And then we wait. Sometimes last summer was up to six weeks or three or four months for a determination if that rate is acceptable. We pay the person the employee based on what we anticipate the feds will allow. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And then you make up the difference if there's something. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: If they yes. That's right. If they don't agree with it, and sometimes that employee is gone. So now we're in the burden of finding that person to pay a back wage rate that wasn't approved because it wasn't on the list that we thought would have been on the list because it's a highway construction project. Then you always have a guardrail on the highway. There's a lot of fear of the a number of additional wage classifications that got requested just in twenty four. Wow. There's how many are guardrail installed? There's always gonna be a guardrail. Why isn't that part of that classification? So it's it's, again, just a a section of it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And and just have to ask before Randy asks a question. The delays, mostly federal or are they state? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: It seems to be the we give it to the state and Sonia submits it to the federal department of labor within a week, and then it's we wait for the Department of Labor to come back to Sonia and then come back to me to tell us at that rate. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: How many employees have been cutting agency transportation? Federal. Right. Randy. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: In the event that you find that the wage you should have paid, you didn't pay enough, you haven't make up the difference then? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Yes. We do. We pay the restitution. It's and you have to submit to the state another certified payroll, and there's a section on restitution and what the person was paid, what the rate they should have been paid, and then calculate the [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And even if the person is gone, they still have to do that? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: We still have to do that. Yep. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Where did you get overpaid? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: People saying, you know, he tells us that. [Witness Michael Harrington]: You can cancel back. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. That's the [Witness Matt Musgrave]: cost of doing business. Apparently, that's the problem. No. It's and I don't think it is. I think what the the point is to try to have livable wage rates for everybody, but sometimes these rates that we're given are really in place. We've been in a situation where a flagger in Essex County is required to be paid over twenty dollars an hour, where in Chittenden County, the wage rate's only fourteen. Those are a few years ago rates, but that's the gist of that. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Tom, [Member Thomas Chittenden]: what's the, like, percent of the time that they come back and require you to pay more than you're owing? Is that, like, half the time? Is it rare that you improve the wage rate you put in? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Ninety percent of the time, they approve that wage rate. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's Yeah. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: I I get it. It's very unfair. Because when we're submitting a rate that we want the government to approve, we do some research and make sure it's reasonable. And, again, going on the county that we're working in and that sort of thing. Another part of that wage rate thing that can be very unfair to employees, and I know that that's a lot of what the point of the committee is is to help our employees is that we can take a fringe credit for benefits that we pay to our employees. So right now, this in twenty five, our health insurance premiums were increased twenty four percent. So we went from paying seven hundred and something dollars a month for our employees' individual coverage to now it's nine hundred and seventy five dollars a month for the same exact policy. So our our costs went up, but that also is an increase in what the employee's benefit is. So now an employee who is on their health insurance coverage, we can take over six dollars an hour of fringe credit for that amount that we pay them for health insurance. So what that means is somebody that's a brand new employee that's coming to work for our company can actually be paid more in their paycheck that they take home than somebody that's worked for me for fifteen or twenty years. Because because of them working so long, their fringe credits can be up to seventeen dollars, at least nine dollars an hour. So a brand new employee can see a bigger paycheck. It's hard for some people to understand that because Yeah. You can go you know you're getting your benefits, but if you don't see that amount in the paycheck, that can cause a lot of contention. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So your feeling on section g of the prevailing wage piece, your feeling on section g is you're already doing it. You've done it for [Witness Matt Musgrave]: forty years. We're doing it all. It's redundant to require that. The city of Burlington also [Chair Alison Clarkson]: has their own agency. It wasn't redundant because not everybody does it. I mean Well, I haven't I'm not familiar with a lot of department. With AOT, it's it's it's required. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: It is. I'm not familiar with the BGS contract, but the commissioner Yeah. I found behind you. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: We're we're paying prevailing wage. And if it's a federally funded project, then we pay Davis Bacon. When it's funded, if it's if it's state dollars by federal, we have to should buy with with Davis Bacon. So And and then So I I didn't say we what we are using, the state's prevailing wage, statute that that is set that Matt spoke about, and that's part of the contract requirement. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right. So [Chair Alison Clarkson]: but on on Davis Bacon, you're also accepting certified [Witness Matt Musgrave]: pay A certified payroll, like, yeah, I would presume has to be And [Witness Wanda Manoli]: I will have to I I will confirm where that certified payroll [Chair Alison Clarkson]: rate is. [Witness Michael Harrington]: That's the [Witness Matt Musgrave]: interesting part too. The ERV trans contracts, and I'll use the Saint John town of Saint Donsbury contract as an example. Town of Saint Johnsbury, we submitted our certified payrolls to the engineer with this food frame movement. And then they submit them to the civil office of civil rights and labor. So there was an issue where someone wasn't paid the right rate for two hours on a particular day on that Saint Jay job. But it was still Sonia that called me out. We pointed it out. We did the research, and then we pay that. So I don't know what the civil rights and labor's realm is of how many contracts they receive these rates to check. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Right. On on this list that that we're looking at, Angie Mhmm. On page seventeen, which were the areas that that you felt that that are already included but which aren't? [Witness Matt Musgrave]: We already include the name of the employee. We've been told to eliminate the address of the employee. I think that's a HIPAA type of situation that you don't really need to know where the people live to just know that they were on your contract. Uh-huh. We report the hours. Yep. We report the wages paid. We report the employees ready to pay. We report the classification. Right. So we do those. Yeah. Okay. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Perfect. That is so helpful. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Anything else, Judy? I just think that the that a lot of points in this particular lot, I don't mean to speak out of place on this, but there's a lot of things in here that are we're already doing them, and it's really putting an additional burden on employers. And I'll go right to the very last line. The actual take effect July first twenty twenty five. That's there's it's not going to be the same [Chair Alison Clarkson]: time Yeah. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: To implement these things. The last year, there was a a law that was implemented for the childcare credit. It was gonna cost our company thousands of dollars to have our payroll program, our accounting program rewritten to accommodate that additional tax to come out of an employee's pay. So we just chose to absorb it. So that's another additional cost, and that's a cost on top of, you know, mandatory paid sick leave, all these other mandatory, rules that are imposed on employers, which, again, to Matt's point, are making employers consider, should I really be in Vermont, or should I just skip across the river to Monroe, New Hampshire and and start my business there and run the business out of with New Hampshire? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So there are pieces in section g that are that even though you're complying with them and doing them so you've got you you this is business as usual for you. Yes. What are the the additional burdens in section g are which numbers for Not [Witness Matt Musgrave]: not an additional burden in section g. Okay. So two years. Of this bill. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Upgrade and there's much more discussion. I I Yes. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: You heard that. I came up with eight different proposals of this one proposed bill, and that just blew me away when I was reading it. Thank you. But on [Chair Alison Clarkson]: this is very helpful on section g. And I think the time frame, I think, all of us have to be cognizant of how much time it takes businesses to adapt, change their their programs, and change their, you know, how they manage it. But I think that's time frame we could certainly get. Yes. Thank you. We have Thank you very much. We so appreciate you being here. Thank you. We are going to pivot to Jamie. And then Pat is coming back at ten thirty to do the JFO. He's he had to it's crossover week. He got stolen to another committee. He did put the we had him quick enough. We're gonna hear from John and Al, and then we have to because it's you, John. John, I think we can have to close the door. Thanks. And then we're gonna pivot to some other things. Thomas, you had a question? Yeah. Okay. I know you're good. Mhmm. Okay. Great. Well Dave, good to meet [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: you. Nice to meet her. [Witness Al Gordon]: Thank you. Jamie Pamm with Pomeric Piper this morning on behalf of the American Property and Casual Insurance Association, which is a natural trade association running online for property taxes including working compensation. They have several hundred members of the country including members in Vermont. And I agree right about sixty five percent, eighty seven percent is on market. So I would like to speak to the confident in in six fifty two as you call it. Beginning in section four, I'll just add ATCI voice in opposition to including health insurance and wage calculation at this time. For the reasons you've heard, including cost. But I think more importantly, this is a significant policy proposal to, you know, that no other thing has adopted. It is is it appropriate, you know, workers' comp is there to help the injured border for injuries or sickness developing on the job? Is it appropriate to explain or combine health insurance, which is for other purposes, illnesses prevention measures etc. You've heard about the potential inequities as well about what it is offering versus that. We all know there are also inequities within health plans in terms of cost sharing operations from the co pays or deductibles. Workers' comp, there are no co pays or deductibles. So how do you reconcile the differences? And is it appropriate to even talk about reconciling these differences? So I'll stop there. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. But as you've heard, I think this is clearly a conversation we need to have more extensively. So Sure. [Witness Al Gordon]: Sure. I would echo mister mister Driscoll and say perhaps not put the house take this one up, but, you know, set this one aside for [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, we'll we'll hope the house takes it up at some point, but after a lot more work. So thank you. I appreciate all that. [Witness Al Gordon]: I'd like to next jump to the proposal to increase the penalties for late payments. That's section seven for section following along. For those of you who've been honest with you, this came up a couple of years ago, and the It did. The treaty decided not to move forward. There were disagreement at the time, and there continues to be disagreements about the occurrence of these late payments. I hear from APCI and its members that they are rare. And when they and if they do happen or either inadvertent and address quickly or for issues beyond their control. As far as some examples for the former in terms of technological issues, it may be that, you know, the the account funds transfer doesn't hit consistently within an account when identified quickly correctly. It may also be that the plaintiff who's been on a repetitive payment cycle falls off, but when identified gets back on. In terms of the latter of birth conditions that may be beyond the carrier's control, for example, a claimant may be receiving temporary partial benefits. And in that case, that's provided weekly check stubs, and those may not be necessarily provided on a timely note set. In addition, a carrier and employer may be waiting from a medical report on release back to work. And sometimes those reports don't come or or straddle in time frame and are withheld pending the the work from the medical provider. So, again, you know, it's it's it's we believe they're rare. We believe they're inadvertent. We believe that they're quickly corrected when under our control, and it doesn't seem fair to penalize and ensure for issues that are beyond their control. Now it also you know, you're sort of I wouldn't say challenged, but you don't see necessarily other powers or penalties that insurers or employers are subject to under the work of comp code, particularly related to payments and such, whether they're potentially subject to, you know, additional late fees, interest payment, etcetera. Significantly, the commissioner is also invested in significant authority to investigate, particular actions, especially if there are suspicious violations or suspected violations of the statute, including administrative penalties. Also including, as we all know, workers' comp is sort of a shared regulatory jurisdiction with the Department of Financial Regulation, which actually sets the rates when he issues licenses. And DOL can transfer or refer administrative issues over to DFR for looking into as well and also subject to their own penalties. I raise this again because, you know, I don't know if we've heard there's no data. I don't know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But the actually, we we we we we've heard we've heard we've had tons of an estimated there. This is a problem, and that it it's a problem for many clients of even just one particular lawyer. So we actually have I mean, it's it's individualized data. You're right. I don't think you as an insurance company probably keep tabs of who's late, but it is your responsibility to to to get these payments in a timely fashion, people who are dependent on this money week to week and live paycheck to paycheck. So it is incumbent on us to get people the means they need to live. So I I have a I, you know, I have less sympathy with penalties for things that are made with big companies that should be able to get these done in a timely fashion. [Witness Al Gordon]: Well, I I thought I heard from the department this morning. You've been on that. And I certainly appreciate the practitioner bringing their examples. But, again, I don't know if that's aberration. I don't know if that's common. I don't know if it's some undercount of potential risk. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It it may be a Yeah. [Witness Al Gordon]: Undercount. It could be. They may have some data. I don't know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And how would you propose we get that? [Witness Al Gordon]: If you could ask the department. The reason I read the panel people is, you know, just for example, the department identifies a particular company that might have a pattern. I gotta thank the new quarters from the department to that company for an inquiry. Opening investigation is gonna certainly get the attention of the company. I gotta thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I'm just gonna ask Dirk on this if I could. And, Kelly, I know I would like to end. Dirk, we've had this challenge before. And why is DOL not starting to collect the data on this? Are you able to collect the data on this? We cannot run reports that go Yeah. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: That show penalties or late payments, because our database is not that sophisticated. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It will be, though. Right? [Witness Dirk Anderson]: One of these days. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, okay. Oh, right. Different different company. [Speaker 14 ]: We're working on it. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: We are also modernizing the workers' comp database as well as the UPI database. It's just taking some time. But we can going forward, if this if and I could do this if the committee wants it. If [Speaker 14 ]: We want it probably think [Chair Alison Clarkson]: a couple years ago. Yeah. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: I can start tracking the issuance of late penalties. It'll just mean our specialists will have to will have to make a note of every time they're opposed and and record that. We can do that. I will do that. K. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And, Kelly, I'll just identify yourself. [Speaker 15 ]: Yeah. Very briefly. Kelly Massica on behalf of the Vermont Association for Justice. What I would say is the case specialists at DUL are not aware in the vast majority of circumstances where late penalties are actually due. First of all, they're probably not even being issued in the vast majority of circumstances where they are due. Only when somebody's represented and only when the attorney is following up and asking for them and pushing for them do the late penalties actually get issued. And the DOL is not even aware in most cases when those penalties are actually being issued. It's only when we're going to the Department of Labor because they've refused refused to pay the penalty or there's other issues there that the case specialists are aware. Unfortunately, they don't have a way to track these late penalties. What I would ask is any of these carriers, pull your defense attorneys, billing spread billing sheets where the point ones following up on late checks because I'm calling every week on my client's cases. Today, senator Clarkson, I gave you, a a letter following up with my statistics. Since January first of twenty twenty four, I have sixty two cases where somebody was due a monetary benefit. Forty seven percent of these people had at least one late payment. Fifteen percent of those sixty two cases, there was there was, just one late payment. Six percent, there were two late payments. And more than a quarter of these cases where people were due money benefits, sixteen out of sixty two cases, twenty six cases, there were three or more late payments too. And these are across carriers. There is not like one or two bad apples. Yes, Maybe there's a carrier who's worse than others, but it's not just that there's one or two. This is across carriers. And lastly, I would just say to Jamie's comments that maybe they're waiting for a medical report and that's why the payment hasn't been issued. Under the law, that's not allowed. If somebody is on benefits, the carrier has to affirmatively file a form twenty seven to cut off the benefits. So they can't just decide not to pay because there's not a medical report that hasn't been available. The other thing about repetitive pay is Jamie said somebody falls off of repetitive pay. It's the carrier's responsibility to make sure that they don't fall off repetitive pay and that the person continues to receive timely issuance of their benefits. When they're on temporary benefits, I'm not saying something's late because the carrier doesn't have the paycheck to calculate what's due. I'm talking about twenty one days after they have the paycheck that they have an issued payment. So this is a ongoing, more serious and frequent problem than it has been. Two years ago when this came up and you guys asked for data, I was forwarding Dirk in many cases right at the beginning. And he said within the first week or two, well, there's there there's a couple of instances right there in just a week or two. I haven't bugged over the last two years with every single instance that I've had of late payments, but Durga can certainly start doing that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: for you. Yeah. And and we already have a penalty, right, of ten percent. [Speaker 15 ]: Five percent if it's one to twenty days late, ten percent if it's twenty one or more days late. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. And this right. [Speaker 15 ]: It's just not a sufficient penalty. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So you're finding it's not a deterrent? [Speaker 15 ]: It's not a deterrent. [Witness Al Gordon]: I appreciate Kelly pulling the numbers again. I don't know the reasons for those. I don't know if it's industry wide, if her numbers, you know, are common elsewhere. I volunteer at PCIA to work with Kelly and her, you know, colleagues as well as the department to try to identify a way to collect this data so we can make an informed decision, whether it's as simple as, you know, copying the department on, you know, correspondence or whatever it might be, whatever we do to kinda kinda bridge this difference in a thing in terms of the severity and [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the problem. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm not sure it's fair. It's just a difference of of experience. So I won't be good. Yeah. Yeah. No. No. Thank you. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I'm so sorry if this was already covered. But have you asked your members how to make sure the payments are more timely? Is was that part [Chair Alison Clarkson]: of your testimony? [Witness Al Gordon]: My testimony was I'm hearing from a member that they are rare to fully pay some of the fall in two buckets. Either sort of technological error that is identified and quickly fixed or they may be permissions that are beyond the carrier's control. So those are the areas that, you know, I hear. And and, no, I haven't heard you know, I asked, is this happening? That's a [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay. Okay. Well, maybe you can take this testimony and, you know, we don't hear about this in a lot of other areas of of payment, you know, sort of payment due Yeah. From my knowledge, especially from folks like your carriers. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So Right. It [Witness Al Gordon]: Well, that's why I was wondering, you know, if if there's a pattern or a particular set Yeah. Of perhaps folks that Right. You know, in that category. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But if it's so rare, then they shouldn't really be concerned about the penalty increase. Thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I don't know. Like, two two cases in a year. It doesn't look like Right. [Witness Al Gordon]: These are some fairly significant jumps in penalties. And, again, for there are issues that may not necessarily go to the carrier's control, there's a concern there as well. This applies across the board. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Then if there's concerns they have [Chair Alison Clarkson]: that are within the law, [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: then we can look [Chair Alison Clarkson]: at, you [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: know, some kind of way to to massage this language in the future. But if if you're saying it's so rare, then this really wouldn't be a problem. That's why you do things like this. It's because you're you're trying to correct the situation. [Witness Al Gordon]: Well, what I'm also saying is, you know, it helps to have the data before we can they can form the public policy. So is this the right thing to do given what we know? And I'm saying, no. Jamie, tell me [Chair Alison Clarkson]: what else do you need to [Witness Al Gordon]: Just quickly. Give The other sections on the case management services and transmission services, it's in the carrier and employer's interest best interest to get the injured worker back on the job. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And so So you're okay with those then? [Witness Al Gordon]: Tools are utilized to be able to help do that, and carriers are using case management services and interested translation services when when necessary. In fact, I've I've heard from carriers that which could live indemnity claims. It's, you know, the vast majority automatically assign assign a case management worker. Our concern is, you know, when you put in statute something that's already working, something that is already addressed by department rule with such a rigid format that it it has a potential for conflict, has potential for delay, has a potential for for increased cost. But, you know, I guess, in summary, it's happening. It's working, and I don't see any [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I guess what we have heard in the testimony is that it's happening, but not working as well as it could. And that codifying it would be helpful to ensure that it actually happens every time someone asks for it. Because that that matters that people be able to get the translation services when they need them and that they get the medical case manager when they need when they need that. [Witness Al Gordon]: Agreed. Again, full goal is to [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: get injured working back on [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We need people back to work. [Witness Al Gordon]: Sort of a difference [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: in [Witness Al Gordon]: the opinion than how the whole store can work. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Thank you. I I appreciate. Thank you very much. And and I think, more of all, no matter what we do on these, I would hope that we would continue collecting the data and coming up with a way that we can collect the data on a systematic way on some of this because, obviously, these payments are so important. [Witness Al Gordon]: Agreed. Yeah. Begin class. Yeah. No. No. And we [Chair Alison Clarkson]: have to figure out how we'll be best. So we are way behind time, and I apologize, but this is also our mostly our only time on the way to build. So it's very important that we get through these. Patrick Pemberton I know we're gonna hear from Chris Delia, but that's a housing ship, which we're gonna wait for for a minute. We have Patrick, and we have John, and we have John, where did you go? I think we up. Okay. And we also have at the door. Oh, wait. Okay. And Al Gordon. Al Gordon. Is Al Gordon in the room? Yep. Al Gordon's Al Gordon. Oh, Al Gordon got in line. And Patrick is just popping in. Oh, there's Al Gordon. Okay. Okay. Great. So and is Patrick or is Patrick? He's joining the Zoom. He's joining the Zoom. I think Patrick, if you don't mind waiting for a sec, I think we're gonna finish with hearing from Al and John, and then we will jump to Patrick and hear JFO's response on cost. And then we'll go to Chris Daley. And committee take break when you need it. The goal is that we always have three here. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: First. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Great. John, hi. You're on deck at I think you're on deck right now. [Speaker 14 ]: Outstanding. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You're standing. No. You're on deck into the chair if you can and then out. Wait. You want me in the chair? Yeah. I'm dead. That means ready to go. Alright. Okay. Great. Welcome. [Speaker 14 ]: The lawyer behind me. Anything else? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's okay. You are speaking to on the board. Our last bill. Introduce yourself. Oh, yeah. Around that. [Speaker 14 ]: Sorry. John Barrard, director of labor relations, housing and resources. State of Vermont. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You are here on the on the third of our three drafts, six five four Yes. Which addresses the right to organize for and I believe your focus to a look at your testimony. [Speaker 14 ]: Very good. So I think our testimony is I think you probably heard already when it comes to providing assistant attorney general the ability to form and build unions. It's complicated. I think that you've probably heard that going over again. From the department from a resources perspective, it, on its base, creates what we can see as a that either a real or pursuit effort may issue. We have assistant attorney generals who represent the Department of Resources, and it's Yeah. Been other departments in various matters in front of the labor board or in courts. They provide advice on a whole myriad of issues that allow them to, right, access the information that they wouldn't normally have. Right. And, yeah, from our perspective, it creates a conflict. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think that this one is also a a a bigger conversation. They are embedded in different departments. It's the the question. And I think we'd have to hear from visitors, but that they would then be converted into classified employees and not come up with the AGs. [Speaker 14 ]: Yes. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think There are a lot [Speaker 14 ]: of other parts here, senator, that I is I'll just give you a quick example. Right? When we bargain, I'm required that an outside counsel who would share with me not because I've been borrowing contracts since nineteen ninety in various forms, not because I'm not capable, but because of the fact that everything that we do, right, ultimately potentially translates either into me as a classified employee or to exempt employees like DHEs, burden wages, and things like that. So there's a conflict there or at least perceived conflict. The Department of Research should end up having to effectively get contracted counsel to do a lot of work beyond just the bargaining. Yeah. Representation at the Labor Board, pension in court. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Oh, tonight? I mean, so I I think we're gonna hear from Al that it is in fact complicated. So we are gonna hear a different perspective. And there's, I think, on the one hand, the element of, you know, conflict in terms of many elements of bargaining that can be worked out. But your HR, why do you think the assistant AGs are are paid at a rate that maybe as we've heard is is hard to be proud of in the market for a strong attorney? [Speaker 14 ]: So I you know, other than seeing some general data related to what your reviews are, I can't speak directly on labor relations. If if we can turn relations by, somebody like Doug Pine who's our compensation Mhmm. Assistant director of compensation, come speak about the pay plan. But I think those questions related to how attorneys are paid are best directed to the attorney general's office. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So Todd has done that and has sent us a memo on on this. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But I think that really puts puts us in a bind. Right? Because they can't have a collective compensation. Well, I think I [Speaker 14 ]: I think that if if you're focused solely on compensation, then that's a different conversation. Right? But collective bargaining bargaining is not about just compensation. Right? It's weight is ours and working condition. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Right. Does does HR ever step in and say, hey. This unit or this type of employee, it's being paid, you know, quite low compared to our our peer states that we we, you know, look at. Do you have did you come prepared with information about the wages, hours, and working conditions of our assistant AGs compared to what? [Speaker 14 ]: No. I'm not here to I'm not here to talk about wages just generally, but we do do what are called market factor analysis when requested by departments to determine that. It it certainly, if one exists, we can certainly get you more. But, I mean, is that related to this the financial aid finance? Okay. All of that information. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: How long does it take for you to get one done? [Speaker 14 ]: How long does it take [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to get [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: A market factor analysis. [Speaker 14 ]: Depends on what the what the complexities of the classification are and what we're looking at and how specific. I don't do those. Again, let's come out of our class. So there are compensation division. So Doug Pine, again, we'd be better equipped to speak to those nuances. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Did I make a request for one to you to pass on to Doug? Absolutely. Would do you have a a set of the time frame? [Speaker 14 ]: I don't. I have to talk to Doug. [Assistant]: Okay. So if you [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: could just email me that Certainly. And tell me the time. Perfect. Thank you. [Speaker 14 ]: The other thing I just wanted to clarify or point out was on the language itself. You heard some testimony about how all this we can do would be a set up a vote [Chair Alison Clarkson]: on whether or not they want [Speaker 14 ]: to organize, but that's not one hundred percent accurate because of the way that the statute is set up is that in order to get to a vote, right, union has to provide the labor board with what's called the showing of interest of cards. They need thirty percent to get to a vote. However, section nine forty one of CELRAC, right, is a card check provision, which is if they submit fifty percent of the proposed bargaining unit plus one and the labor board verifies that showing of interest, there is no vote. The union would be automatically recognized. So we just wanna clarify that the idea that somehow it just sets up a vote is only half accurate. And then the other the other thing that you heard testimony on was this idea of making decertifications and the certification, and that's the intent of the change in section two. Right. Yeah. That's also not necessarily accurate either. In or if in order to make them the same, then you would need to create a card check provision for decertification as well. Right now, the language is set up that in order to decertify, you have to have the showing of interest of thirty percent, and then there's a vote. This language would require a showing of interest of well, it's fifty percent, but then we talk about supporting at least fifty one percent, which are two different things, by the way. Fifty plus one at fifty percent plus one employee is not always fifty one percent. So [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: those [Speaker 14 ]: are two different things. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy there. But there's no provision in this proposed language for some sort of decertification by card check. So if if the idea is to make them the same, this language doesn't do that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And then, finally, [Speaker 14 ]: the only thing we have is if the if it is the intent to provide a quarter million dollars to the labor relations board for additional staffing. DHR always wants to get clarity on where those positions are coming from. Are they positions from the existing pool? Is the legislature gonna add to the pool? Is this for contract staff? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Judy, we only heard that it was for another attorney and for a a part time additional part time clerk and to take the part time person to full time. So I think it's one part time, one part one part time and one that did pick and one full time lawyer because she's overwhelmed, quite honestly. And so with the I don't know where those positions are. And I think with this, that is that's a detail we may have to let the other body address. But I think the need is real. And when, you know, you would work with with the board enough to know how how pressed [Speaker 14 ]: they are. That's our only question was where advice where are the positions coming from? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. And I think that's a good question. But I think the lawyer will probably come from not a number of the the part time and full making full time part time position at the moment might might be. I'm sorry. Thank you. And and and and the so Yeah. So the I appreciate the question. [Speaker 14 ]: I'm trying I know you're pressed for time. We're a little behind. Yeah. Yeah. That is the that's really the parking's condition. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Which is what? Your question [Member David Weeks]: of where where where are the [Speaker 14 ]: No. No. That's our position on that. Alright. That's just in some in summary, that's our position. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'll just end up clarifying where the positions come from in section four. Are you supportive of the LRB support of of your initial staff? We have no objection. Let's say that. Okay. I think that's fair given the circumstances. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. John, thank you. And I realized I don't know if you were in the room when we introduced ourselves because this is your first time in this committee this year. And so have you met [Speaker 14 ]: I don't think I've met Simon Chimp. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: He's to meet you. Tom Chimp and and more [Speaker 14 ]: of you. Everyone else I have. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. Well, we have the pleasure of working with you with numbers of committees. Yes. Right. Okay. Terrific. Thanks. I think we'll shift to Al Gordon. Al, welcome. You just heard our additional introductions, but I don't even do you know all of us? [Speaker 16 ]: I've heard the introductions that you've made at various time this morning, and it is a pleasure to meet you all. Thank you for agreeing to let me sit in front of you today. I apologize I can't be there in person, but the scheduling happened so late. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's okay. We're we're and we are grateful that you've made time for us. Okay? [Speaker 16 ]: Thank thank you. So by way of introduction of me, my name is Al Gordon O'Connell. I use he, him pronouns. I'm a labor lawyer. That's what I do. I've been doing it for, twenty five years or so. I worked first as a neutral for the federal government, for the federal labor relations authority, where I was a where was I where I was a unionized lawyer, by the way. I was in a union, a federal government, labor lawyers are unionized, at the NLRB and the FLRA. I'm now, and for the last twenty years, I've been at the firm of Peil Romarenberg. I'm the managing partner of that firm. We are the largest union law firm in Vermont. We represent private and public sector employees across the spectrum. And in that regard, I serve, proudly as the general counsel of the Vermont State Employees Association. And they've, they obviously take a very strong position about the the legislation in front of you. And as, John Barrard predicted, I am going to say that this legislation is entirely uncontroversial because it is already the public policy of the state of Vermont that assistant that workers should engage in collective bargaining or at least have that right. The right to engage in collective bargaining is in the public interest. You have six or seven statutes, providing for labor relations rights and collective bargaining, and that makes clear the legislature's intent around that. And so all you're being asked to do is to say that assistant attorney generals should have the right to collectively bargain. All you're saying is that they are workers, workers who have the same kinds of concerns as any other kind of worker and who need the same rights and protections. And the trend toward attorney assistant attorney generals is for coverage. I think Connecticut, passed legislation in twenty sixteen covering them. State of Washington passed it in twenty nineteen. So and those are not the only two states. Those are the most recent two states. And Vermont's always been on the vanguard of respecting and protecting its workers. So, it doesn't seem too much to ask here. It is really a very simple proposition. So the concerns that you've heard from management representatives are not actually concerns that result from this bill. And, actually, they're entirely premature. Let me start with what, what John Barrard mentioned this morning about certain AAGs who may be involved in labor relations matters. Those types of employees under existing law would already be excluded from a collective bargaining unit as confidential employees. Right? There are five assistant attorney generals who we appear opposite at the Vermont Labor Relations Board. Those five assistant attorneys general would not be eligible to be in the union, and that's normal. There's always going to be a group of employees who are engaged in the labor relations function who are not allowed to organize. That doesn't interfere with the right of, say, an AAG who does nothing but a human services work. There's nothing about that person's work that would prevent them from being organized. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So they're not just wouldn't just recuse themselves on specific issues, matters. They would not even be eligible to cert to be anything. [Speaker 16 ]: Exactly. And that brings to the point of why this is so simple and noncontroversial is because you have an expert agency that's designed to make these determinations, and you don't even need to modify the statute to make that happen. So the first question, the thing that, Todd Deloz was talking about when he appeared before you was the fragmentation problem. Right. The statute, CELRA, already contains the ability for the labor board to determine the appropriate unit. And the labor board looks at two things to determine whether a unit is appropriate. Number one, do the employees have a community of interest? There it may be that the embedded were, AAGs in human services do not have a community of interest with the ones who work directly in the AGs office. The labor board will be asked that question and will determine what the scope of the unit should be. And there are several possibilities, a statewide unit of all AAGs, a unit of just AAGs in the attorney general's office, separate units of AAGs embedded in separate agencies. But it's the twin goals of community of interest and preventing over fragmentation that will be given to the labor board. This body does not need to debate those questions. There's a long line of case law all the way up to the Vermont Supreme Court that explains why and how units should be put together. And that also brings up the questions about pay things because part of the community of interest factors is whether the employees have a similar method of compensation, whether they work for a similar supervisor in a in a similar chain of command. Those are things that the Labor Board will determine to decide what the unit should look like and what negotiations will look like. They do not should not prevent this body from saying we believe our assistant attorney general should be respected like all other workers and should have the right to band together for mutual aid and protection because that's really what the statute is all about. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you for that. And does the the the same testimony apply to section to the next so we have DCERT, and we have the supervisory, the judiciary supervisors. Do you wanna speak to the judiciary supervisors and then go to DCERT? [Speaker 16 ]: Sure. I'll start with judiciary supervisors. The super in Vermont, under both republic and private sector statutes, supervisors on the whole, not all of them, but on the whole, have the right to engage in collective bargaining. Now there's a distinction between supervisory employees and managerial employees. So those who set the policy for the department or the agency would not be considered, as being in the in the bargaining unit. People who make policy, people engage in labor relations, those people would be excluded as managers. But frontline supervisors, those who may have several employees who report to them and who they have supervisory and power over, There's no real reason why those folks should not be included, and Vermont, like many other states, includes them. It's unclear to me why they were excluded from the judiciary in the first place, but there doesn't seem to be any real reason to exclude them because they're not falling under that managerial prerogative. They don't engage in collective bargaining. All they do is frontline supervision to get the work done. So we certainly support that. And Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And as we on D CERT then? [Speaker 16 ]: Right. On D CERT, the the rules the statute in some ways is slightly unclear in terms of how people get in and how people get out of the unit. The concern is that when you're looking for election to determine whether it's a certification or decertification, that those are not equal things. When there is a long term representative who is negotiating contracts, it's the union movement believes it's important that there is a significant showing that those employees wanna throw out a union before that matter gets to go forward. Because once it once you start that machinery, then you get into campaigns. And campaigns, as much as we'd like to think, are about the truth, are not about the truth. They're about threats and interference and other ways to cajole employees. And so we think it's it would be much clearer and easier to ensure that employees if employees really want their union out, that a full majority of them has made that clear. So the union supports this legislation. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I I I get that. I would assume that. Yeah. So you support the move from the thirty percent to the fifty percent plus one, which is not part of that. It doesn't make fifty one percent. [Speaker 16 ]: Right. Fifty plus what? Fifty percent plus one. Yep. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Plus one. Is it one percent or one person? [Speaker 16 ]: One human [Chair Alison Clarkson]: being. So Human being. Yeah. That's K. Sure. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thanks, Al. Can you help put into contact what we heard from John that it could be either awkward or ethically concerning if somebody has access to certain information and then is part of a bargaining unit? That that kind of line of thinking concerns me because I'm sure that would occur with a lot of different types of of organized staff, you know, that they that that that it's awkward, but it's what happens and why we this population is otherwise special or more unethical or more awkward to include. [Speaker 16 ]: Yes. Thank you for the question. It's a it's a question that in my practice I deal with routinely. I'm in the middle of a proceeding in another state where that's quite is a central question before the the Labor Relations Board. And the fact is that those considerations are already something that the Vermont Labor Relations Board looks at. So to determine whether an employee is confidential and thus excluded from coverage, one of the questions is, does the employee have routine access to confidential information? What kind of confidential information that is? And so merely, being able to go into a case file that may relate to labor relations would certainly not be enough because that employee should not be going into that case file if it's not their case. So it really comes down to a case by case, person by person determination as to how much involvement that person has and how much knowledge that person has about labor relations that are confidential and general confidential information. Confidential is a funny word. Right? Knowing someone's social security number, that's certainly confidential, but that wouldn't exclude you from collective bargaining. You might be excluded if you are if you know the proposals that the employer is going to make before they get to the bargaining table, or if you have involvement in cases against the union. But that's going to be a very, very small number of assistant attorneys general. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. I think this is just the basic mechanics of how you structure labor relations, not something that's like that we have to solve or that is intractable in some way. I would really hope we keep this moving forward because it's just come up for so many years. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And and just lastly, because we are running out of time, the the support for the additional staff on the labor relations board, your experience with that at all? [Speaker 16 ]: My experience is that the labor relations board has been woefully understaffed for a very long time, and we have dozens and dozens of cases awaiting decision that simply, can't get out. I have employees who have been waiting two or more years after hearing for a decision. Please staff that agency appropriately so that we can have labor management working in the in the state again. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you. Any questions for Al? Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you [Speaker 16 ]: very much. It was a pleasure. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Been a whirlwind. Patrick Titherton. [Speaker 17 ]: Good morning, madam chair. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Good morning. I hope you're feeling better. [Speaker 17 ]: I was gonna ask. I, my face is made for radio today. Do you mind if I leave my camera off? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Your voice is made for radio too, Patrick. [Speaker 17 ]: Wow. That's that's the the cold. It's giving me a low timber. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Now you're I am sorry that you're feeling lousy. But we're glad that you did go to yesterday, so you didn't have have to do it with your call. Tell us if you let's begin. We're looking at the well, Patrick, tell us what you've done and what you have discovered. And I think we have Patrick's memo where? I have a memo for So some Okay. [Speaker 17 ]: Patrick did it in the joint fiscal office. I don't have a specific memo for these two bills. What I was planning on doing with the committee is sort of, I mean, you've you've heard a lot of testimony about a lot of the considerations. So I will just talk try to talk about, you know, sort of our perspective of thinking about what are the what are the costs of some of these proposals. I think that the memo you might be thinking of is related [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to memo. I know we have one for economic development. [Speaker 17 ]: Exactly. So that's that's the I think we're talking about that later. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I was glad I thought there was one for today, but we're we're getting your input. [Speaker 17 ]: So we're if you want I know we were just talking about, was it zero drafting request zero six five four. So I can start there if you like. Sure. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I don't have a sixty five four. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. So this is the collective bargaining bill. I I don't have a ton to say in terms of sort of anticipated cost. You know? My mind kinda goes to two questions. The first one being, you know, you're you're giving them the right to unionize or collectively bargain. The question then is, do they then take that opportunity to actually go and do that? So there's that question there. And then in terms of, you know, change in cost that might be associated with that to the state, it kinda comes down to what agreement is collectively bargained for. So at at this time, I don't think that we can put a dollar figure on Right. What that might look like. But those are just two considerations I wanted just throw out there when thinking about what could the potential cost of this be. It really comes down to what what agreement is ultimately [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So it's an it's an ICON. To. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Okay. But the LRB and the DCIRD, I assume, would be a negative would be a decreased cost to the state, potentially. [Speaker 17 ]: Again, there's there's kind of an an unknown there. Potentially, maybe, you know, it it really gets you into the world of some hypotheticals of how much that changes, you know, the landscape on the ground. [Member David Weeks]: Right. So that's what I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: copy. There are the straightforward copy. [Speaker 17 ]: It's just an appropriation. Right? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. Two of them. That that's the cost for that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. Okay. Thank you for clarona. That's helpful. Any questions on six fifty four? Okay. Awesome. Okay. How about moving into as we go backwards to six fifty three? [Speaker 17 ]: Sure. So the first so, again, I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you there's several unknowns for me with the potential cost. I think some of those have been talked about. And, you know, I I'll just throw out with our role, you know, that none of this is any comment on the policy itself. It's just our perspective on thinking through potential costs or savings, whatever it may be. So in the first instance, the the vacation leave, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You know? That's six fifty two. [Speaker 17 ]: Is that not what we're talking about? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. Well, we we can. That's where you are. Let's go to six fifty two. It's the bigger of the bills anyway. [Speaker 17 ]: I I I had finished my thoughts on six fifty four. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. I had thought you were going to six fifty three. I apologize. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Six fifty three. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I thought we were kind of going from the backup. Let's go to six fifty two because it has the most cost. [Speaker 17 ]: Six six sorry. Six fifty three is really quick. I I don't have any thoughts about potential fiscal impacts with those. I I I don't know. I didn't identify something that looked like it would, you know, create anything more than any sort of de minimis cost. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Great. We like de minimis cost. And so now let's go to six fifty two, which has has some cost implications. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. And this is one where I was mentioning there's there's plan there's, a good amount of unknowns, about what potential cost might look like. So when thinking about vacation leave, you know, the the commissioner and I had talked about, well, what what in the system can we potentially get at that might tell us a little bit about what employers are already doing in terms of paying out vacation time that's accrued but not been used. You know, so there's oftentimes, employees will receive some, like, a severance package. Right? You know, for x number of years here, you get x number of weeks of severance pay. Sometimes, it can include vacation time, and that severance pay or the payouts upon leaving the employer has a offsetting effect when thinking about what their unemployment benefits might be, because the more that you're receiving in severance can bring down the benefits that you can receive from the trust fund. Right? So on one hand, you'll have potentially, have some higher costs for employers who have to pay this amount to the employees directly. So there's potential for some additional cost for them. But at the same time, if they're a reimbursing employer or rate payer, you know, it could lower potentially lower their and I'm I'm using potentially sort of expansively potentially lower some of their experience rating, for their rate that they have to pay into the, fund. And if they're reimbursing employer, if they're pay if the employee is receiving lower benefits, they have less to reimburse to the trust fund. Right? But, generally speaking, the the trust fund, you know, gets compensated for the outlays associated with that. The next piece has to do with the health insurance or the workers' comp. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. There are several pieces under the workers' comp. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. And so for that one specifically so I guess I'll start the translation services, case management services, we don't anticipate driving a significant cost. And I had conversations with the commissioner and deputy commissioner the other day, and they they seem to agree that that those costs weren't would not be significant. But the the inclusion of the health market rate health insurance in the wage calculation. [Member David Weeks]: Right. You know, that's something that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Before you joined us, that is clearly a bigger conversation. So I I wouldn't I think we we we'll have discussion about whether we wanna take it up at at after crossover, but I it's a it's a much bigger conversation, so I wouldn't devote too much time to that at the moment. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. I well, I would agree. I think it's I also agree. I think it's a a larger conversation. A couple of questions for me that just kinda pop up with that is, you know, how is market rate defined? Is it employer contribution, employee contribution? What is the benchmark plan used for calculating the market rate? Some of those things. And Nolan and I and Jen Carby and Sophie have all talked about this. So that'll be something to think about. But, you know, even with that, the commissioner Harrington brought in the actuarial analysis. That's something I would also rely on to sort of scope out costs just to give you my thinking on how what that would look like. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. [Speaker 17 ]: So the next piece has to do with the minimum wage for inmates. We have I I did, Scott Moore actually provide [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Can we just finish on the workers' comp piece? Because, I think, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: what's [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I think the additional piece on workers' comp is the timely payment to the recipients. So, section g. And I don't think you probably have there's any cost to the state involved in that. That would only be a benefit to the state and employers with actual money in their pockets. [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. I mean, I I think the only potential cost, and, you know, I would defer to the, commissioner on this piece, is just if the if it if it results in any sort of increased enforcement, or actions taken in that space, not to suggest that they don't already do, all that work when it comes up, you know, potentially. And I'm just saying potentially, maybe some administrative costs. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. [Speaker 17 ]: But, again, I would defer to the department on that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. And I think I'm gonna direct you actually just in the interest of time because we're so tight here. I don't I don't think the Department of Corrections I think that conversation is gonna be we're gonna deal with our our workforce bill after crossover. And because we know it's high, that you're just if you just quickly if you've done a number on it, that would be helpful. But I think other than that, we'd appreciate, I think, the discussion on the ag minimum wage. [Speaker 17 ]: So, yeah, I guess, real quick, what I'll say about the inmates. I just would remind you that there is so one one one way that the department pays inmates compensation is through something called the Vermont Corrections Industries Special Fund. And that fund is sort of has a structural deficit that this year in section fifty three of the BA, there is an appropriation to sort of make that it's about three point one million dollars to make that fund whole. Yeah. And then the other thing is in also in the BA, there is a broader correction study that is, going to be done. And as part of that study, it does include, inmate pay as part of the study. So it's something that the BAA has already instructed them to, you know, look at and report back to the legislature on. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Terrific. Thank you. That's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: perfect. I personally [Speaker 17 ]: don't see any, you know, state fiscal costs associated with this. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. [Speaker 17 ]: And the last thing I sort of identified is with the the prevailing wage for for the state construction program projects. I I would also say that there's a bit of unknown about, cost to the state associated with the with that. You know, one thing I would need, and this has been mentioned previously, is we don't have the all the wage data associated with those collective bargaining agreements. And so what we would rely on and what, I guess, to put it one way, if if we didn't have the existing prevailing wage statute, one thing I would need is the, report that Matt Berowitz puts together, on the for the LMI with the that has the prevailing wage information in it. Right. And they have a map on their web. So if that didn't exist, I would need that to do a cost estimate for moving to the current system is one way of putting it. So I I that's something I'd need the mapping on. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right. And [Speaker 17 ]: then the other piece in that with the reporting, I think most of it has to do with if additional staff are required to administer the reporting and what systems the, either department or departments would require to maintain that information. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. Right. And it sounds like with some departments clearly not all, it sounds like AOT already has that in place, and they do it on a routine basis. So it and so oh, that section g. I just got my sections mixed up. I apologize. The it's section seven. That was the slide. This came. Great. Patrick, thank you. We will see you at noon, I believe, is our next time. [Member David Weeks]: Yep. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you very much. Feel better in the interim. And Thank you. Committee, I think we are at a point for us to go through the three bills and see what we have appetite for at the moment. And I absolutely appreciate oh, before we do that quickly, Chris Delia, I know, and then we're gonna move to committee discussions. So Chris Delia, I pause. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: No. No. No. No. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So Chris is not gonna be here tomorrow and ask that he weigh in briefly on the briefly on the house able to Mhmm. Solve peace with fair helping protection. [Speaker 13 ]: Right. For the record, Christie, the president of Vermont's Outdoor Association, my apologies for asking you to change topics, but I can't be here tomorrow because I've got a doctor's appointment in Boston, and those are part that come by, as you can imagine. We can. So I sent you an email, I think it was last week or maybe earlier this week, just expressing the concern. In your housing bill, page twenty two, parenthesis six, you've got the word integration the words integration status in there as it pertains to real estate lending? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. It was a mortgage Correct. Concern. [Speaker 13 ]: And I identified in my email what the concerns were, so I would just ask you to remove those two words. Citizenship is fine. Sorry. Sorry. Which section? Because it's the mortgage thing. Twenty two parenthesis six. It's that was the draft [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I was looking at for. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yep. Parenthesis six. It's unlined Yeah. M on page three. [Speaker 13 ]: Correct. So citizenship is fine. Immigration status is fine. And all of those other categories, let's say, into the testimony the other day, it seems like it was really focusing on rental housing. Yes. But this one does create a challenge for us in the marketplace. So just to ask each of them. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: This is the challenge for mortgages [Speaker 13 ]: for getting mortgage? It's a challenge for mortgages based on the analysis that we have to do, which relates to right to repayment, risks to repayment. Also, we can't stand I should note that. Banks? We as banks. Correct. Just to inform [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I don't think you did you answer your question? Okay. Good. [Speaker 13 ]: Sure. And then, also, many of my institutions sell mortgages in the secondary market, and we would not be able to attest the immigration status for those mortgages. So that's gonna cut off a lot of access to capital. So that's another concern that we have. Again, everything else in that in those sections is fine. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Great. So you're fine with the rest sections for well, all the other fair practice? Yes, ma'am. Fair housing, unfair, how many practices pieces. Okay. Great. Yes. Chris, thank you. I appreciate you, coming in to share that. [Speaker 13 ]: Well, again, I apologize for interrupting your flow. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You you haven't. It's it's it's perfect. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you very much. Okay. Now shift back. Thanks. I we just had to do that because Chris has been being patient. I think we now need to decide what we would like to move on and what we're ready to move on. And [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Acacia? Before we get deep into that Okay. We I, you know, I have a planned prep conference at noon. I'm wondering if we expressed some kind of intention to come back later in the day. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I would like to have I was to have that conversation just before you left. Oh, okay. So I'm happy as we begin this. So we have scheduled twelve noon, our sort of our markup and look at at the cost and at the economic development filter. So I I think we're we're hopefully, we'll be able to check off, do the NASA check off on on and and and really get that bill fully done if we can. I'm I would like very much if we are able to ask the committee to consider two time additions to as the pro tem is is very keen on our getting these. By Friday. Maybe yeah. By Friday. So the one area we may be able to be a priority would be in housing, but I hate to say that out loud, but it it it I think we should make a case for that. Yeah. No. No. So I would ask that we consider coming back for an hour after our afternoon committees if we were able from four thirty to five thirty, and coming back tomorrow. It's unclear to me what the floor action is like tomorrow. But coming back at some point after the floor action before our afternoon committees and or considering some time at the end of the day. I know and and I I know the finance committee is is gonna be working, but but may have a bigger workload next week in all fairness. And I know and I don't know about education. And I know in GovOps, we will be done for early ish. Okay. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Can you couldn't finance. Can you get out at four? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: You don't know. That's what I did. Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We don't know. Okay. We could tentatively plan maybe Yeah. For for tomorrow. For yeah. From four to Well, I'll assume tomorrow afternoon. [Member David Weeks]: We're really we've run out [Chair Alison Clarkson]: of runway. No. We haven't. Pitch. Oh, and educational. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. It's not [Member David Weeks]: we don't know where they'll be at the end of the day. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I thought you were talking about today. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, I'm talking about tomorrow. Okay. I I I talked about today also. I I know you talked, but I'm focusing on it. Yeah. Mhmm. Today, okay. [Member David Weeks]: You know? You'd be okay for [Chair Alison Clarkson]: a couple of weeks. We may [Member David Weeks]: not be back all at the same time. But [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's true. [Member David Weeks]: But tomorrow afternoon, I think that's a Yeah. I think that's a bridge too far. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. I need to talk about [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. I can tell you, I just have an overall concern about rushing through things and making mistakes. And that's what I think we're we're aligning ourselves up to do. We're trying to run through things without sufficient time to consider, to debate, to examine. And I don't like that as a method of operation at all. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Can I make a suggestion? Where we look at an item and say, we need to hear from x, y, z before you make a decision. I'm perfectly I I as one committee member perfectly happy to agree. Yeah. Like, those are we we have to hear from those folks to responsibly make a decision. You know, I think there are some areas where it's, well, you know, did AG come back and tell us this or that where that feels more open for discussion. But I'm perfectly willing to respect that if people say, we haven't heard from these folks and that would be irresponsible, I I will cease I mean, further argument. Or [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we we would hear from them and [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, that's what I mean by Friday. But we're not gonna hear from them that by Friday, so we wouldn't meet a particular question. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. So I'm hearing more appetite after after after our committee since afternoon, maybe going to four thirty till five thirty ish. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, are you gonna go into the lunch hour today too? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We're going to twelve thirty. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But you're not gonna what would you actually think before twelve thirty? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We will not vote anything without you. [Member David Weeks]: K. I'm a little concerned that we're not prioritizing these bills. I'm a little concerned that we haven't straw holding these bills to see if we should continue with an application of our [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's what we're about to do. Right? [Member David Weeks]: K. And yeah. Good. But [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We had to hear the conversation this morning for us to have, I think, the the labor straw poll. I think that we will have the straw poll at noon on the economic development bill, and we still have more information as you know. But I think we're getting there on the housing bill. [Member David Weeks]: I think we are too. I think we should start Shawpawing and and then prioritize what's left. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, and I I think my heart is breaking. I I really do hope we can get special dispensation for the housing bill because through no fault of anyone's, my housing language that I've been trying to preview for weeks is coming maybe today, maybe tomorrow. And it just makes me sad. We've just gotten really backed up procedurally. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, and our staff is back. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That's that's what I mean. I'm not I don't even mean our no one This [Member David Weeks]: is the environment we live in. Yeah. We have to flex to it if we ever respect those limitations, and here's where they are. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Sure. I guess I would be asking the committee, you know, to be willing to just I just wanna say now, I'm I hope people are willing to consider other housing pieces and the possibility that we ask to continue that work into next week. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So that's another question, which is would people be and it may not even be additional pieces because it may be it may be just what we have in front of us to get it right enough for us to to stand by it on the floor. We may need another Monday afternoon chunk. I I think the morning is a challenge for people, but I'm happy to consider any time on Monday for us to move forward. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: One of the things that I'm concerned about is for those of us who are on money committees, I don't know what [Member David Weeks]: next week is done for me. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Because we're gonna That's why I'm not asking beyond Monday. Has Anne asked you to consider Not [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: at this point. No. But I haven't seen what's coming. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, the whole budget's coming. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: know. You'll have pieces. So you'll have a The budget. So I'm ask we're asking for we're we're going to twelve thirty right now. I'm asking if we should do some time after our acting on committees to start at four or four thirty depending on when we adjourn till five thirty. And then today. Tomorrow, we're starting at eight. We only get to eleven thirty tomorrow. So I'm asking if there's any time between the end of floor session and our afternoon committee time to start, if we can have that. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And Wait. Say that again? I was [Member David Weeks]: You're talking about tomorrow. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Tomorrow's eight to eleven thirty. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You suggest that we start at eight, so we're doing eight to eleven thirty. Okay. A solid a solid chunk chunk. But I'm also asking depending on where we end up to have in our back pockets, two time frames. One is after the floor, before our afternoon committees, and, you know, bringing lunch in here. And we may be ready to it may be a voting time. [Member David Weeks]: I'm a new guy, but that doesn't seem plausible. Four time, it will consume. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I don't know what four time it it will be on Friday. I yeah. Look at what's on notice already. It's not a full docket, but [Member David Weeks]: it's not it's not blank. We have to respect that, then we have our app machine [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: that that things to go out. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right now, I appreciate it. I'm also fine. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I'm just asking when we're scheduled to meet in education tomorrow because if we have twelve forty five to one thirty, that seems like they use the full amount of time. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I guess it's less than forty five minutes. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You usually start at one thirty. I Yeah. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: The conversations are not done if we don't get bills out by tomorrow. We are gonna get bills from the house, and we get to put stuff on there and continue these conversations. So I I don't feel that stressed. I will say this was helpful this morning. Thank you for lining all this up. And I just reviewed the six fifty two, six fifty three, and six fifty three before If we're gonna send anything forward, but I'm also fine with just continuing this after crossover. I'm really only comfortable with about four sections, and I don't know where the rest of the committee is. But I'd be happy to to list those. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Just the focus is on the sections. [Speaker 12 ]: But I don't [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I do think it's arbitrary for tomorrow. And if we don't get this stuff out, that's fine. But I do think the housing bill's really close, so let's get that thing across. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You start at one in education hour with that, and that's drafting and, like, people. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And what's thirty on finance? Yeah. We want thirty on finance. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. So we we can't give up our education. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: We get in the hole in our half of this session, so we're gonna come back after. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So we do when we don't. The house is not sending us an economic development bill or a labor bill. I would really like to get some pieces of those over if we could. And I I think what sorry? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Are they saying the workforce bill over? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: They that was gonna be my additional update. Yes. They have worked on a big workforce bill. However, unfortunately, it has been attached to the education bill. So I can ask for that to be divided so that we get to see it. We also have a workforce bill here so that we can add to that. So we have a a bill that's already come to us, h thirty four, which is [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: a workforce bill. Force bill that's coming to us, but where is that gonna go? No. No. We have one right there. But is it gonna be floated in the fourth? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. No. It's we're gonna work on it and add the workforce pieces we've talked about to it. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And so how's it gonna [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And and I'm gonna try and get the CTE bill sent that piece of it. I'm gonna ask Seth if we could work on that for you. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I just wanna [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I don't quite understand that. Like like like, if you think I don't understand how that's gonna move. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm not sure either, and I have to chat. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I would have to chat. Generate the chat. The house bill is going away because we had some discussions of which there are pieces that we wanna put a house bill. If there's no house bill, I wanna do that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We're getting a housing bill, but we need to get No. No. House bill regarding work work development. We are getting it, but sadly, we I I'm not sure. We senators are getting it, and I need to work with John to find out how we would get the piece that is the work work development piece that's now been incorporated into the education bill. That is what I found, I [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: guess, today. So I think I'm underscoring senator Chitman's point, but crossover is an artificial construct that we use in the state house that the public generally does not care about. You know, we are not I hope I just wanna say, although, we're not signaling to the greater public one way or the other on a particular issue Absolutely. If something doesn't get passed by tomorrow. And I wanna say that for the benefit of people who are also in this building that I worry if we're I worry if we're signaling too much that something's moving because it's in a bill tomorrow or not. And it is Well, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: there's some things, though, that we have been talking about regarding the Workforce Development bill. There's no Workforce Development bill that is coming over. Right. If it's in an escalation bill, a germane that's the thing that we Right. Not adding. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So That [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: would mean that it would be dead. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. We have already a house bill, a workforce development debt. I would say, yeah, we have vehicles. I I [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: have never run into a vehicle for all of them. That's a big deal. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The creation of the well, it's already been debated. But the [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Are you, like, Vanna White? Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. The office of our workforce strategy and development is right there. So we have a workforce development bill to work with. We have a vehicle. And we but I think we do need to do a a a top priority for me is to get our housing bill out. And for me as as as chair, I mean, I don't I I I top priority is to get an economic development bill as well and some labor pieces. And I think there's some labor pieces if we do a straw poll now that we could put together in a bill that I think would make some sense. So I think we just need if we can, it doesn't sound like time after the floor or tomorrow works. Let's see what we can negotiate on Monday. So I would like us to first go through the straw poll with, and and I'd love to just begin it with a prerogative of the chair to say what I think I hear we have support for and what I think we may not. And you've already heard me chat all morning. Thanks. But I think there's some biggie. Are we So we're gonna look at all three. We're gonna look at first at six fifty two, and I would love a straw poll on six fifty two as we go through it, what people are comfortable with voting out at the moment. And I I'm just gonna say I have a I have a thought that that we may or may not be able to, and you'll fill in as we go through a straw poll. But I would say just generally, I think we may have some support around the ag minimum wage, the vacation time, the penalty phase, maybe adjusting the sliding scales, but the penalty in workers' comp and the submission of certified payroll. Translation services. And yeah. That's a yes. Translation sections five and six, the translation services and the medical negotiator. But translation services, there was something else in that. But I think Medical case management? Yeah. Medical case management. Both of those are simply codifying what already exists. So I would think sections five and and the medical management piece on page, in that subsection. So it's the medical management and the translation pieces. I think section seven, we, is the penalty that I think we could the slide and scale piece. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I was getting some off. The bill up on the they're on I [Witness Wanda Manoli]: put them online this morning. Okay. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I just meant it's I don't know. Maybe I'm just used to something. When we're, like, talking about them and they're on the walk the screen. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. We can We could do that. And and then [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I'm just gonna flurry my paper so that I can Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. I I also had thought we might move on on right to sit, but that clearly maybe some more discussions required on that. On the other one, I think the rights to organize, we could consider all of those, and I think there's some support for some of those pieces. I think there is support for the labor relations work. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Why don't we have Sophie in the witness chair if she's here for the information? Sophie is We're scrolling through the scrolling through the document. Great. Nice stuff. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And then let's Okay. So that was sort of the things I thought we had some energy for Exactly. In the labor world and There are and [Witness Matt Musgrave]: Okay. Wouldn't that be nice? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I haven't done that yet. Okay. Sophie, let's go through. And so but but that just as I have been listening to our conversation, those are the things I thought we had some energy around and that the rest, I actually, we can discuss after Crock River and get to the house and and have action on this party and or they can pull it out of their house rules. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Or I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are there are no votes to some of those pieces. Yeah. And when we get to them later, it's I don't care who else we hear from. I'm not voting for that. Right. I just yeah. It's not like I'm trying [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to keep everything alive because [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: we barely hear how senator we feel. I know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I know. I know. But I was just trying to see where I'd seen that we have possible support to move some things of these three labor bills. So, Sophie, do we have can we put ourselves up online? Let's start with six fifty two. Yeah. I the code I need, I can't see one for actually. Like, there's usually a code up there for me to share where I have on my screen. I learned how to do it today. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But But you When we're on? You can't just seek to enter the Zoom room? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: She knows she doesn't have a on my computer. Do you need my computer? Wait. We just need your computer. I can sign I can set it up. Here. I've got Yeah. [Speaker 15 ]: No. Don't worry. I put my. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And why is that? Well, there's a code that shows up when we're not actually live. I and, like, I can't see it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Can you email me the Zoom link? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And then I'll yes. I can hand associate my computer. Okay. No. I've I've got a computer. I just need to get it. Oh, okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Tell us that you just gone find another computer. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Found that? Where did the computer come from? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: It's my computer. No. No. [Assistant]: This is mine. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Oh, you did have Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Oh, okay. That's it. I'm sorry. I thought [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you said you. Okay. So, Thomas, if we I talked through some of the pieces I had thought we had some agreement around, and then we're now we're gonna go through six fifty two and check off what we have in support [Member David Weeks]: to do and what we don't [Chair Alison Clarkson]: and move from there. It doesn't have subject to any type. I just need. Okay. While this is happening, I'm taking some work. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: We take a break. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: We'll give all the time in the world. We have one now. [19 seconds of silence] [Member Thomas Chittenden]: On this this this [Chair Alison Clarkson]: this this I don't [Assistant]: know how it turns out. I don't [Witness Michael Harrington]: know how it turns out. Speak up and I'm like, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Was it wait. Can we get it up? Yeah. She get like that all day. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm really gonna look to hear from the two of you. I think you're on the agriculture committee. No. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: The the task force. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I was on the end. Yeah. The task force. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Mhmm. So I have not I haven't heard any testimony, so I I just wanna know where you all are. I have concerns with it because I have [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I I have. And I have to deal with it. But let's let's wait. We gotta go back. You know? But the I mean, committee summer committee that looked at this was not entirely in concurrence with with some revisions. We had real concerns as to whether or not we had sufficient information to really understand what was happening. We had limited information. [Member David Weeks]: So if you [Member Thomas Chittenden]: gotta go the aggregate [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: or we gotta hear from agricultural people. Yeah. No. No. We did not hear that, at least, to buy satisfaction, what we did with selling. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, I just wanna say, I mean, if we were to put that in any bill, it would either get it it would get airtime in agriculture. There's there's just no doubt about that. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I don't wanna It [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: may be that that's where it should get the airtime, but I'm pulling a number out of the air based on what I heard this summer without making time. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Sure. I mean, the decisions that they made in here are because it's a population that's excluded from our set minimum wage. So that's why the conversation originates here. I'm not saying people don't deserve to have more time on it. Where I tell me if I'm characterizing this wrong. The only thing the task force agreed on is that we had been tasked with looking at whether or not a structure around union organizing for dairy workers or all farm workers, but particularly workers who have long hours, would be a helpful tool to increase their quality of lives, their, working conditions. And we we you know, does does collective bargaining work to to give them better wages, hours, and working conditions? The the task force agreed that was not a helpful path because there had been no evidence even in the twelve states that allow some type of framework of organizing that any organizing had taken place and particularly with nonseasonal agricultural industry. We I would hope we talked to there and I hope agree here, you know, the health, well-being, and safety of our dairy workers, our farm workers is a paramount consideration for a labor committee as well. And if it was a non fruitful path to look at collective bargaining, the committees of jurisdiction could at least do more work to look at wages hours over time. I personally don't know what more information we are going to get that is that we feel is concrete about worker, especially dairy worker wages? And if there are wages that are below minimum wage, where might we get? Do you think the agency of agriculture is the is the group to go to for that? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, I'm not sure, but I know that what we heard from was very limited in scope. We heard wage information that solely came from minor justice and not from anywhere else as far as as the notion that most people are not getting the way. On the other hand, we heard from the Eric Ducey's Association. And, again, this numb percentage numbers that they quoted and how valid what they quoted was, I had no idea because there was no official validation of that, said that the workers in their group that they serve in regarding the work paying anyway. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Perhaps. Entirely [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: in conflict with each other. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Perhaps we could have them both in at the same time because we did a lot of our path course meetings with people on Zoom. Mhmm. Because I recall them saying most of our members pay [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Mhmm. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Above a minimum wage. And [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But it was a limited response. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes. It was a limited response, I think, by virtue maybe of the political climate you were in at [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: that time. With dignity folks were the ones who won't seem to be counted. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay. So yeah. [Member David Weeks]: If I could so this conversation could go on all day. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: It could. [Member David Weeks]: How how about if we say, you know, we're we're section by section. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. That's what I thought we were on section one. [Member David Weeks]: Mhmm. Keep it. We hold it over crossover, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: and then [Member David Weeks]: we relook, potentially goes through every committee, whatever the resolution is. Sure. But for today, we say pause. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That's okay. I just wanna make sure [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we're clear can [Member David Weeks]: do this with every section. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: We could. And I do just wanna make sure we're clear who we would hear from to get the information needed to to understand the concerns. So I'm proposing that when we hold it over, we hear from Migrant Justice and the Dairy Alliance at the same time and anyone else. And [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Who else that we should hear from that might actually provide us with information that's useful? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think that's not fair. I think that all the information we've been given from all the different witnesses has been useful. I think Yeah. [Witness Dirk Anderson]: We just need more. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think we I think we need more. But I wouldn't [Member David Weeks]: Like Randy's point is it needs to be we need to make sure we have a balance in the test. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. Mhmm. But it's up to everybody to propose those witnesses. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And we have some validity in what we can. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Mhmm. And you two have heard a lot on this issue, and we relied heavily on this committee on this. So I think a a section one, we definitely wanna keep moving on. Just like and section I would move us to section two. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Section one, I need more information on. So I would not be ready to move that out of committee. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You'll move on to what I Okay. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: But the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: What I hear is that people are willing to keep it a lot and and discuss it [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And not continue to discuss. The overtime? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. No. No. Section one. Sorry. Section one. Minimum wage. Right. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Ag minimum wage. Ag minimum wage holdover. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Holdover. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm putting a hold or check to go. Those are the two choices we have. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: We're not gonna talk about it this year. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Or no. It's fine. Feel. Right? Or no. Yes. Holdover. So here are our options. Each section. Yes. I'm ready to move on it. Hold or no. Good. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay? Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So section one, I think we have hold. [Assistant]: You have hold on agriculture workers. What about the certified executive administrative or professional employee overtime piece? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That is the end of section one. Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. For me, it's hold. Okay. [Assistant]: Bold. Section two. Agricultural workers overtime at one and a half at sixty hours. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Bold. [Member David Weeks]: Yeah. That's on hold. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well Six fifty two. Right? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Six fifty two. Two. So There's [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I'm a I'm a true negotiator, and I you know, for that, that's a long time. Came in with Randy. I would be willing to let this one go if we can spend sufficient time on the agricultural worker wage. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I mean, this I would say the same thing. To me, the minimum wage is the most important thing for ag workers right now. Everyone should be earning a minimum wage at least. [Member David Weeks]: So is that a shield of a section vote? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, it's a I need agreement that people are willing did. In good faith to look at one, and I would like to [Member David Weeks]: to pause on section ones. Yeah. That's Well, as good as it gets. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: But it's meaningful. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But when we talk about section one, it is not solely what's being paid right now. There there are more issues than that. Right. But [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think we've got a hold on that. So we're gonna work on that hold on that. Continue to work on that. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I want people to earn their own wage. I don't understand [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: what the total bundle [Member Thomas Chittenden]: that they're getting at these [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And we're in charge. Yeah. Okay. And we have unintended consequences by doing that, given what the labor force is and the nature of it Yep. Would we wind up basically killing more jobs than we'd say? And I wanna understand that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Section two is overtime for ag workers, and I would say that is I'm hearing a no from where are we on that? Are we on a hold or no? I'm happy [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I will just say from the task force perspective, this one is hard to resolve in a few days. So if we don't have time this year, we don't have time this year. And I'd like to that's why I'm saying I'd rather devote that time to the I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: have a third suggestion. Hold for twenty six. Hold for twenty six. Hold for twenty six. Hold for twenty six. Okay. Section three. Weekly payment of wages. This is the paycheck. Pay off vacation. You wanna hold? Yep. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Possibly. I've got a lot of [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: lot of questions about this one. The voluntary vacation day. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Mhmm. It's it's at [Witness Al Gordon]: least at least the whole for [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: at least. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I would like to keep it alive and So hold. Yeah. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. So [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think it's I I I would be ready to move on it, but I I honor those of you who think we need to do some further work on it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I can try to get the person who raised this to me and have some kind of, I think, real injury around this to testify. [Speaker 14 ]: Okay. Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And we need to find out if it's if it's a a a bigger problem than what we're facing. [Assistant]: Okay. Then section four is the wages including Workers' comp. This in yeah. Including the market value of health insurance and the average weekly wage. So I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: this is clearly a much bigger conversation. I would say this was a hold and maybe a hold for twenty six. Where are all of you on this? That's including health care in wages. Whole point of solutions. Okay. [Assistant]: The next one is the medical case management, which straddles several sections, but let's do it here. This is where the definition is. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: This is currently already able to be used. For me, this is important. It gives It's Yeah. What is this? [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Make it faceless at each other? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, I got my list. I'll just say. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. This is codifying something that already exists as an opportunity. It's a service that we that is and it's my understanding, this codifies this, and it's fine that can currently request it. [Assistant]: Is that right? The difference is just that the claimants can now request this. Right now, this is the insurance carrier can request it. So this would just provide the option for engine employees to request it. And I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I think that's just important. If if there are services that are available, people should be able to get [Member Thomas Chittenden]: The testimony from the commissioner persuades me [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to think this is good to go forward. Right. [Witness Al Gordon]: Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: That's right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I'm okay with medical management if that's okay with the rest of the committee. Translation services. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Similarly. Yep. Me too. I'm I'm good to go on that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay? We're [Member Thomas Chittenden]: going around the room, everybody. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Hearing no objection, I'm gonna move to section six. [Assistant]: That's also the medical Right. So what So I'm just gonna zip through to page seven, which is gets into the penalties. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So section five, okay, section six. Okay. And we're gonna move to workers' comp, which is? [Assistant]: Section seven. This is the penalty provision. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Just one question. It's in the back of my mind as far as the agriculture of the board is, Is there a substantial population of agricultural employees who for whom mortgage compensation is not being paid in the first place? [Assistant]: They are required to do it right now. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, yeah. Do that particularly where where the workforce is composed principally of workers who cannot legally work in the United States. Are they getting workers' comp in the first place? [Assistant]: That's not you. I believe they're required to [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I know they're required to, but aren't they? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Well, that's an enforcement question. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Right? It is an enforcement question. You know, how do we know, for example, how many agriculture workers in Vermont getting workers' comp compared to the population? So this is something that, yeah, we might wanna look at, but it's not gonna be as easy as, like, flipping a switch. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: You're saying you're a hole in section seven. So am I. Mhmm. But I don't think this is [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: penalty? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So this isn't this is the penalty section seven. This is not and Dirk is here, and we can have a a hold on converse of the other conversations about workers' comp. But never hold on it. But [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: How do you wanna hear from of it? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: What wait. Are we talking slide of scale? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So we were talking agriculture. Are you talking section seven or agriculture? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I was talking about the agriculture repaying to mine as we talk about section seven. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Okay. So we can have discussions about ag and workers' comp further, but I think it's the law that they have to pay. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I was remote for the vault in this testimony, so I would yield up to your other thoughts of this. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. This are we on a sliding scale? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Sliding scale. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Okay. So section seven, I would like to I would like to move on it. I that's a check for me. I think that if people are owed money, workers, particularly given how many people live paycheck to paycheck, this is important money for people. And big companies, you know, they could figure out how to get the to them on a timely fashion. I do not have a problem with that. However, I know one of our members has a concern about the scale the scale. So I would be happy to entertain a proposal. We already know five and ten percent is already in law. The fifteen, twenty, and twenty five percent scale. I know, some members feel that the twenty five percent is is steep. And, and and maybe so I would entertain a a a I would love to hear how other people feel, but I I'm I'm happy to think about the scale ending at at twenty eight percent or even fifteen, but I would really would love to be able to get people their money. I think this is important. [Member David Weeks]: What what are your thoughts? I think we have legislation that gets them the money. May not be at at a magnitude percentage that the Tsar will run the table. I think five and ten percent is over especially. We don't need to go up [Witness Al Gordon]: to twenty five percent. Yeah. And when there's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: a persistent problem, referral to the commissioner, I think, is an appropriate approach for disciplinary action as far as the the the insurer is concerned. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think we're hearing people are there is insufficient consequence for not paying in a timely fashion. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So think the consequence should be on the insured, not on [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the It is. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, I so there are other forms of payment where because it is considered an injury to the person who owed is owed the money, more more money is added. Right? A penalty is added because that person suffered hardship, may have had late fees, etcetera. Well, that happens everywhere in the commercial code that you are owed more money for for injury because you were not paid. That, in my mind, is the reason to do this because the longer someone goes without the payment [Member David Weeks]: already doing. Yeah. Five hundred percent. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So I guess the like, is are those sufficient to both encourage timely payment and to satisfy the potential injury to the person who has an extremely late payment or consistently late payments? That is my question. I mean, when I when Jamie was in the witness chair and I said this doesn't happen in other areas, I actually wanted to take it back because I get reimbursements for health care stuff. And I think if I was living paycheck to paycheck and this came six weeks later than I was expecting it, which it does all the time, you know, I don't know how I'd survive. Right. I mean, I true you know, anytime I get one of those checks that takes forever from an insurance company, I think about a vast majority of other Vermonters who needed that money, you know, weeks ago. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Maybe this would be would be the kind of thing for passing a law about it. Additionally, we ought to take some testimony. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We have taken testimony. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Who else [Chair Alison Clarkson]: do you have? We've heard from the department. We've heard from a lawyer that has sixty two cases in one year. Yes. I And [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: we heard from insurance. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. It was Jamie. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We had heard from Jamie [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: who, of course Who said it's just so rare. And then it's like, if it's rare, then you're not running into this issue. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Sixty two cases a year is not rare in my mind. Mhmm. Sixty? Sixty two. One lawyer. Not a problem [Member David Weeks]: in total payments. That's the other number we have. So that that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I don't know how we find that. [Member David Weeks]: That's that's the point. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But I guess then it also means that's not a significant financial harm [Witness Matt Musgrave]: to our workers' compensation. Significant problem. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Oh. But it is significant to the person who is he responded [Member David Weeks]: to percent is already in penalties. I think it's okay. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I don't know that that helps someone who's getting So just late payments. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So that's [Member David Weeks]: where we can disagree. So I think [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we should take a straw poll. So we it sounds like we have a check for the language through fifth for ten percent. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, but let's take a straw poll because Okay. In my experience and, you know, we're all two new members of the committee. There's a lot of new people in the legislature. My sense in the past has been you you take straw holes on things. You see if the majority support them, and then they get left until the very end when you decide if you're up and down on the whole bill. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: After you look at it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So Right. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So what you're [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: saying So [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I would be with Yeah. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Like, are you you're no on this section. So No. He's No on the scale. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: He's still on the scale. So who would support this with up to twenty percent? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Doing for a compromise scale? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I'm looking for a compromise scale. I would support this up to twenty percent. [Speaker 14 ]: Since the cap is a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I want a consequence that's meaningful. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: The consequence which I looked by compromise. [Member David Weeks]: Percent impact. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's pretty substantial. But it's not in I mean, what we heard [Member David Weeks]: It'll never be zero. It'll never be zero cases of late payments. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: You know, [Member David Weeks]: and increasing that percent. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: If there's an ongoing consistent delay in payments that may be a delivered profit mark on the part of the insurer, it shouldn't be punished this way. It should be punished by removing the insurer from the insurance pool, and that should be a regulatory action. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, eventually, yes. But people are experiencing personal harm when their remuneration is [Member Thomas Chittenden]: is delayed. That would require tracking. It seems like tracking was a [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: big issue with this. That's why we're not actively tracking it. Because we don't seem to have a whole lot of other accidents. Do you wanna [Member Thomas Chittenden]: revisit this and look for a tracking mechanism so that we could apply that penalty? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: That we don't create [Member David Weeks]: We're not gonna do that [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: in twenty minutes or so because of doing that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I I hear support for current for for taking it up through b. That is where I The new language. Fifteen is already not. I would be willing to go to fifteen. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Fifteen. Compromise. [Member David Weeks]: Well, then you've got four folks who want fifteen. Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Great. Okay. The fifteen percent. [Assistant]: So it'll be fifteen percent of the benefit amount of the payment or any subsequent payments. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We're serious about that. They're gonna go fifteen. Okay. Thank you. Section eight is the I think that we that is something that we should consider with along with the support school support staff. And so for me, section eight is something that holds up twenty six or beyond. Oh. [Member David Weeks]: Yep. Yep. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I missed that part where [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we we're not talking about this here. I don't I think yeah. I think we can't look at increasing cost to educational institutions at the moment. Okay. [Member David Weeks]: So Or we we kill Well, she said more [Chair Alison Clarkson]: beyond twenty six. I I said a whole twenty six or beyond. That's a that's a new law. Okay. You could take a deep breath, and then you can okay. Beyond. And beyond. Oh, yeah. Section nine. And section nine and ten are both the Department of Corrections. And I I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I mean, one day, I just like to hear more testimony on this issue. I we these are some of the most voiceless people in our society and systems. They come out of prison and, you know, I I when I worked for the city, I tried to help people find local jobs. And it's just it just feels like it it's I don't know. You'd have to really want work experience to work for, like, seventy five cents a day. So, you know, that doesn't even buy you shampoo in corrections. So I really like to hear their experience, and I do think this is a piece of the puzzle on helping our correction system function better if people are fully occupied, employed, even helping the system run-in food service, in custodial, I don't know, but we're hearing there's a shortage there. To me, this is a productive way even if we just increase their wage somewhat. But I don't even have the figures. It's somewhere between ten dollars a day, maybe. I don't even know. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: They get paid one dollar and fifty cents to nine dollar and fifty cents a day currently. And the estimate on the addition, if we went to minimum wage for incarcerated workers, would be eight to twelve million. And that was the best the commission the deputy commissioner could get. I would like to have this conversation stay alive very much and include it in the workforce development discussion because I would like to spend that amount of money getting better career and technical education into our prisons where we can then, you know, give people really good skills so they can leave with with with strong employment opportunities. Why would that have [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to be linked to what they earn in prison? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But I think I think we need to have that conversation. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: That's a different question. [Member David Weeks]: What So I I'm agreeing that the minimum wage question is not really the essence of this issue. The essence is, are they being trained sufficiently for reentry into the community? Yes. How do they compensate if what they do inside? I'm gonna say no. If I do say yes, I'm getting looking at dedicating those funds to training. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I'll I'll just say this and then be quiet, but if we can get people closer to ten dollars a day from a dollar fifty a day, I don't know what you would do for a dollar fifty a day. But [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, it would be whether or not I wanted an education to be able to do something when I got out of prison. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So I want I'm a whole, but I definitely wanna come up to this again. And the board I was on that I served on this last Monday when I wasn't available is NEVI, and they have a a lot of research on how to educate incarcerated individuals and tie some of these incentives and learn and earn type programs. So I'd love to hear from them, and I would definitely expect them to be in a session depending on the time for about a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: year. We have our first person, Nevi. Great. Okay. So that is section nine and ten. Sections section eleven, I dare say prevailing wage is a much bigger conversation that we need to have. And so I would boldly propose that that is a hold. And the question is, when do we wanna have that conversation? Because it's a big one. But I would really very much like to to have us consider moving on section g Section g. Which is the the sub submission of the certified employees. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: The testimony today from missus Derosher's they said that they're currently collecting this. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. They call AOT is. Okay. Clearly, there's mixed experience with this and that most big employers are required to do this in other states. This is common practice in other states. IRS, I don't know how they function. I mean, IRS is gonna require knowing what they're employing their what they're paying their employees. So I for me, this is a a this is a a common practice that we should just to you and Brian? [Member David Weeks]: For the seventy seventy. The key assistance. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I can't present this on the floor because I don't understand it well enough, and the implications and which where the factors would be. So I'm not expressed, not or not presented on the floor, but I'm open to getting consistency with what the agency of transportation does either now or over the next three years when they get the agencies get more comfortable with it. So I I [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: would be concerned with any type of [Member Thomas Chittenden]: implementation plan that would have this [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Is this just AOT? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. Just submitting submitting. No. Right. But So [Member Thomas Chittenden]: everybody else does. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So my understanding is that this simply certifying that you are paying the wage that's required. That's and submitting it to the person who you've contracted. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Yeah. I just won't present this on the floor because [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I just don't know how serious of an implication that is for many [Member Thomas Chittenden]: of our state government departments. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Am I misrepresenting that? That is simply what this is doing, and this is a piece of chipping away at misclassification, which we still have a problem with. So for me, I particularly with these big contracts, this is not an onerous as you heard, this is this is standard practice for many of our big employers, who are the ones that are doing these big Davis fake vacant [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Right. It also levels the playing field for the ones that already are meeting the standard. I'm I hear senator Chitin's point that I don't like going to the floor with things where we feel like we could have done better to make sure we can answer any question. We're holding onto a lot of things I care about that I hope we address right after the intensity of crossover subsides. So I'd like to make this a very key part of what we do very soon, but I don't wanna force this conversation by tomorrow. If That does some of us. Not this tomorrow. I don't know if it's at best or worst with. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So But this is workforce, and we forget it. We had a workforce built in the house. So we can do this No. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That's what I'm saying. At at best, you're paused, meaning you're okay with pausing. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But take the time to understand what you're doing before doing it. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: That would be great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. So hold for twenty five. That's a hold for that's a current hold. Hold for. Credit hold. Okay. That is Three [Member Thomas Chittenden]: thirty four. That's looking very good. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yeah. No. I'm I'm looking like a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm sorry. But okay. So that's one I care about. So that that is letting go of something that I'm very frustrated by, but there we are. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Not letting it go. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We are we're letting it go for Pausing. For pausing. I also think if we if we do let it go, we wanna make sure we hear from other departments and and we I don't know how we move it forward. Anyway, we'll figure out. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But it sounds like, you know, more more people like Juvy, you know, who had a fabulous jacket also and can can share kind of similarly the other conversations how these are some standard things that we've heard are probably more complicated than they are. So I think a little bit more testimony would help us reduce the complexity. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Great. I think we have, pieces that we can move on in this bill and let us move to, and and we can ask the advocates for more witnesses on both sides of this of this discussion with g. Let's move to six fifty three. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That was gonna be my commutated moment [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to go to our press. Oh, okay. Do you have before you go Can [Member David Weeks]: I can I ask, is there any sense in considering this conversation if we're missing one of the key members? Should we just stop stop what we're doing? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We can shift to economic development because that's when we have break This was your bill. Yeah. Feeding Yeah. Maybe. You wanna be here more. Yeah. So then I would hope this week you discuss us after Yeah. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: If you [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: go to it sounds like you are not stopping progress if you go to economic development, which I don't think I have any remaining [Chair Alison Clarkson]: issues with. Okay. Good. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I never had any major issues. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Good. Right. Okay. But okay. So we will get your drawings on that. Okay. I I just sort of before we leave well, let's wait and have this conversation after somebody does that. Okay? Okay. Okay. So, Sophie, thank you very much. I think we see a a a a redraft of of six fifty two, like, the modest. Yes. It's just Sorry. One bill, a new draft with I will. We've been re trying to do. That okay with everybody? Yes. Is that okay? [Assistant]: How far is that? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Four fifty. Yeah. Four four fifty. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: Well, I don't I don't know that I will. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: End of the day. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Or End of [Member David Weeks]: the day. Before we we can be the end of the day. Can we get a paper copy if if we're gonna talk about it? Yeah. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Vote it out. We gotta see it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You're on that. [Member David Weeks]: I'm not sure what's it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay, guys. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. This is what happened. It's just. This is a me. This is a committee with a big jurisdiction, and so Three. Three. We have it. Okay. Oh. [Speaker 15 ]: I know we've been sitting in a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: chair for, like, four hours. I have it printed, but it's not online because I don't have your Google over it online. So you have our approval from it online. And if you if you could pass around the printed piece Yeah. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: And I'll get I'll get you that. [Assistant]: We will And everyone will be able to see [Chair Alison Clarkson]: it online in just a few minutes. I have a crack. [Speaker 15 ]: Crack. Alright. It's Crunchy. Crack. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: What do they got? Okay. Chipper. Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Chocolate's been something Alright. It's been a while. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: How's it going? Oh, no. It's kind of unusual to have. I agree. [Witness Matt Musgrave]: I agree. He's in Iraq. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: He is he has just joined this Zoom. Okay. One moment. I am going to spend this I'm here. She's okay with this bill. We'll get her checks off on it as as we go. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: She's in some new Zoom link? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. Hi. Okay. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Thanks. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, I'm waiting [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: for the yes. You should have dropped one point four, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: which One point three. One two seven. The one I just handed you One [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: point four. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It is one point four. [Member David Weeks]: One point four. There you have it. [Witness Wanda Manoli]: There you go. It is not yet on He's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: got it. He's got it. He's got it. He's got it. He's got it. [Member David Weeks]: He's got it. He's got it. He's got it. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: He's got it. He's got it. He's got it. He's got it. That's right. My apologies. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That will be momentarily. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So the changes from one point three, which I went over yesterday, are highlighted in yellow. No other changes were made to fill. And we can start on page [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And if we want, we can yeah. And you also have been handed. JFOs were on telling what I had on paper, but very kindly Patrick has put that together for us. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So Rick Sable, office of Legislative Council on page nine. Again, this is draft one point four. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So given that we're going to be hopefully signing off on this bill Yep. To later today when we're all together, Just I would like to go through we like to check off the sections that we are in agreement on. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. Well, let's start with section one then. This is the downtown and built center tax credit program. This is in statute. And the proposal here is to raise, at the bottom of page one, raise the total amount of tax credits awarded annually from three million to does not exceed three million to does not exceed five million, and this is currently governor's recommended task. Right? I support the. I [Assistant]: I I will [Member David Weeks]: close that. So fundamentally, I'm struggling to increase any numbers higher than the governor's house. Oh, really? I'm really looking for some rationalization, but, you know, that's kind of my going in. I I didn't all good programs, but there's a limit on the budget, and I'm I'm not trying to bust through Right. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But we're [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the legislature. This is [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the governor's desk. Second one. [Member David Weeks]: Right. But Well, second one. First, session. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: This is governor's desk. So, David Yes, ma'am. In answer to that, we're a separate body. Well, that's I'm And it's but but I I would say that we we have been given the opportunity by the Appropriations Committee to look at what we heard that. May or may not want additionally. They will work diligently to try and make as much work as possible. So I think I am hopeful that we these are and let let's go for section by section. We'll figure it out. So section two. So it sounds like we're all we have a check on section one. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Section one is the government recommends. If your points in our weeks, we're still good. [Member David Weeks]: Yeah. If that's the case. Yeah. And I'm I'm I'm wondering what this this matrix is in front of us. If that's [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Because it doesn't have things that are already in the budgets. It's that are already appropriate. So, Patrick, do you wanna explain, why the five nine is in your contract? [Speaker 17 ]: Yeah. Sure. The Patrick Church in joint fiscal office. The the table in front of you is really just, covering the appropriations that are in the bill, or, I've identified a couple of, per diem areas where there might be some additional costs that you wanna think about appropriating for. The expansion of the credit is not in and of itself an appropriation. I I can confirm that the three to five increase in the cap was included in the governor's recommendation. And [Member David Weeks]: Yeah. So I'll go back to Tesman. I can confirm that it it was in the governor. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: This [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I wouldn't tell you it was if it wasn't. I mean, yeah, it's in the governor's. It's in the budget. Yeah. Hey. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. Section two. This begins some of these small business requests. This is three hundred thousand from the general fund to the Department of Economic Development for the purpose of supporting the Vermont Law and Graduate School's public education offerings and critical support to small businesses through their small business law center. Give her testimony over this. This is not in the governor's breaking of the budget. Right. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: And I think it's he wanted [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to talk to Pat. He has included that information on there. So that's a running total. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And to go to David's concern, I think these are all areas that support our small businesses. These are all things that are being taken great advantage of, and they could do more work on behalf of our small businesses and entrepreneurs if they were given more resources. And so for me, this is an opportunity greenlighting more support for our small businesses, every every one of these. And I think we heard compelling testimony on on most of these. So I would ask us to in particular with legal. I know this is not in the governor's budget at all. We realize that. And I don't, you know, I don't know why. But oh, because it was primarily family function. Yeah. So we've got [Member David Weeks]: a new guy, but every committee everyone comes in and asks for meaningful increases in for for their very relevant programs. I get that. But fundamentally, I'm just gonna say that I'm not gonna support the increase above the governor's task for nine forty one. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. So you're no on this section. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. I I would love to have someone on every one of these issues come in and testify against it so we get a good know what we need because everybody comes and testifies for spending additional money. And in most of these cases, we have, I think, very questionable measurements to determine whether or not they actually accomplish anything. We have what the agency tells us or the organization or the nonprofit tells us. We don't have accountability. So are you on the on this section? [Witness Al Gordon]: Yeah. No. [Member David Weeks]: And so we get that. I think we need to pause [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: in these [Chair Alison Clarkson]: cost. Nice. Can't go out. [Member David Weeks]: So I'm agreeing with Senator Brock because we're missing that we're missing that element into a testimony. So, again, we [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: could say we could put we could put a hold on or something to get it later in in in whether it be later in this biennium or or or session or in twenty six. Got it. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I love getting the consensus, but I I will say I I support this. [Member David Weeks]: I think [Member Thomas Chittenden]: the chair has made the good arguments with this with the presentation. So and I know that there's a lot of steps left in the process. So I I can support this these allocations. I I do I do worry that they're actually gonna gonna get served at appropriations, but it's probably gonna be vetoed. And these things are probably gonna be on the chopping block. But from the presentation so far, these have my support. Yeah. And [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I think always looking for the negative. It it you know, people have an opportunity to weigh in. Our emails are all are all open for everyone to weigh in if they don't like something. I don't know anybody who hasn't really appreciated ten hours of free free free legal advice to help their small business go forward and do the right thing or, you know, incorporate in the right way. So I think but I hear you. And at the moment, we will have to pace your way in. But at the moment, we're at at two two on that. So I would move There [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: are other organizations, by the way, who do provide services, except as the SBA that provide The [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the the the the bar association helps some, but this crowd directs a lot of entrepreneurs [Speaker 14 ]: to the bar association. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So they have a very good working relationship with you. The professionals of color, section b, we heard strong testimony on this twice, maybe even three times. They are asking for an additional appropriation. They are in as you'll see on Patrick's chart, they are in the ACCD budget for Two fifty. For two fifty. And so I I David, would you support as we go around, David, would you support them at two fifty? Oh, yes. Okay, Randy. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: The governor was the governor two fifty or two hundred? Two fifty. Two fifty. I I I'd say yes, but there's a degree of reluctance on my side is I hate to see BIPOC businesses being treated differently. When there are BIPOC businesses that are owned by millionaires on the one hand, and there are businesses run by extremely poor people in Vermont who are excluded from the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And they're included in all these other sections. So I'm really, really old that they're there for it. And this is only for small business questions. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But as I say, I'm uncomfortable with this by singling them out because in a way, it almost discourages them to compete in the normal market. So I'd [Member David Weeks]: like to this is a center of. I was [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: very, very impressed success here. [Member David Weeks]: And and I would I would really like to support anybody who's this active and this professional who's supporting small businesses. That's a center of Brock's point. But when you start segregating on who and who can't apply to these types of programs, fundamentally fundamentally have a ball. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. [Member David Weeks]: So but I but I would hold at the governor's back. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Thank you. That's where I would be. Okay. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm fine at the two fifty or the three fifty elevated. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. I'm fine at the three fifty elevated. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Even if appropriation strips it up, we still report these on the floor. Is that how it works? [Member David Weeks]: Yeah. Okay. You gotta take ownership. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So yeah. Well, that's our job to be advocating for economic development, housing, and general payers. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, our job also is advocating for taxpayers. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, ab absolutely. But our job, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: yeah, I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: understand that is [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: balance that we have to achieve and and making decisions against funding. It's not that we're saying a lot of these things are not bad. No. We're just saying that we've gotta prioritize what we do on the basis of what we have. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I agree, and I I completely agree. I would go to section c, which is business advising. Our Vermont Small Business Development Center, this is has you'll look at the chart. It has is in the governor's budget at three eighty eight, three hundred and eighty eight thousand eight hundred and eighty nine dollars. They are asking for an additional appropriation of three hundred thousand dollars, to reach an additional two hundred Vermont entrepreneurs and small business owners. And they are all over the state. They have been incredibly effective. I applaud their work, and I support this expansion if we are able to do it. And, you know, that's I I that's [Member Thomas Chittenden]: definitive to the taxpayer. I do see this as a million dollars, but it seems like worthy are worthy causes based on the presentation, so I have [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: to support this as well. By the way, from all of these things that get through, there has to be a measurement mechanism. There has to be a reporting back. There has to be a mechanism as to whether or not we actually have done something that has made a difference and has gotta be reporting from someone other than the organization who received [Member David Weeks]: it. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I think that's a good question for the appropriations committee who have asked for those measures, and we have asked for them with results based accountabilities. You remember on your o b. I do. And I believe that exists, and and I it's a good conversation for us to have with appropriations. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: As a former state auditor, are these too small for the auditor's attention, or do they go No. Okay. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I don't know what the question is. The principle, though, of how you do accountability of things that you pass like this, that is something that the auditor and I've mentioned before needs to have a methodology. And it's almost like we in in in in legislation almost ought to have standard language as to how we measure stuff to know whether or not this actually works and is making sense. And perhaps we could construct some language, and it probably will be an amendment after after crossover, so it becomes back to us. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So, actually, this is an issue Kendall and I worked on really closely with our, task force because one of the recommendations from that consultant was that we actually create a whole department for them of of data of data that collects consistent data in every department, in every agency that we can so that we can actually do those comparisons that you're talking about measurables. In fact, ways to have each department have its own measurement. Measurements. It would. And it would it would but somebody needs to create yet another department. Right. But somebody needs to create that consistent measure. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Well, what? After four thirty today? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Well, we're coming. All the time we have. So, David, you're I assume are are you okay with the governor's recommendation? Yes. Okay. And, Randy? Yes. Okay. And okay. Section d. Right? [Member David Weeks]: It's the Who's this guy? This this [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: is the resource guy that creates the website, the, the magazine, and the AI platform that helps provide the events, grants, programs, and educational content that's associated with the guide. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And this has been a big ask from the business community from from a lot of the organization that this would be an additional help to small businesses starting out and entrepreneurs so that they at least have a guide to get them started. So you comment during testimony once [Member David Weeks]: it needs a due date? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yes. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It has a due date of December [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: The last sentence on [Member David Weeks]: the December twenty third. Work out my old notes now. Got it. Got it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It does now have a due date because we we actually, this section got reworked quite a bit, Rick. One point, [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: yeah, one point through hadn't updated that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Got it. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, that'd be the one [Chair Alison Clarkson]: that's correct. So this is a new ask. This is an ask that that is a new ad. It's not [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: what the government's recommend. David, I assume that you would then not support this. Well, this is something, though, that we did, and and this originated from a legislative task force to look at, particularly, the film and media industry. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's further down. Yes. This is [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Oh, is that we're not talking film. We're not talking film. Part of the same sentence. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. And this is this is for all small businesses. Sorry. So it's it's it's it's to a focus on two. This is still section two. It's [Member David Weeks]: Got it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Letter d. So this is for all entrepreneurs and, you know, small businesses. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: This is all for all startups. But, again, it's it's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: it is an economic development tool. I think it is. And I would support this. Okay. I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thomas? Yep. Yep. David? Yeah. I'll I'll just. Micro business support. Currently, they are you know, maybe I think I always remember this thing. Yeah. Sorry. Well, don't [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I don't wanna interrupt you. Go ahead. This language hasn't changed since draft one point three. The question I have and we received an email, madam chair. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. We have the wrong department. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. So that needs to be corrected? Yeah. I know we're correct that now. So you're on your draft. You said you have the Department of Economic Development issued in the Department of Children and Families. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: There's a problem. Thank you, Matt, for Yeah. For sending this to us. You know, Jeremy? [Member David Weeks]: Yes, Thomas. There's a number one to speak. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yes. Because we just did what he asked us to do. You Matt, just quickly identify yourself. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: For the record, Matthew DeGroot on behalf of the community action agencies, and it's the division is the office of economic opportunity. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But it's under the department of It is. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So but you might be appropriate [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: in directly to OEO, I think. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Okay. So that way [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: you see office of economic opportunity? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I would put where where it's actually going. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: You need to flatten some of that structure So you can call it layers. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's not a question. Yeah. Okay. You're all around. So this this money goes I think in many ways, this is leveraged in a in a incredibly productive way. This goes to our really, the the the first step of of our businesses for particularly people who have less means are are people who are really just starting out and creating opportunities for people to really begin something that they have dreamed about. And we have a lot of very small businesses that have been very productively created from our micro businesses, from our community action agencies. And I we have this committee just to give you a little history, this committee has supported this often at the level of a million dollars. This is how Switchback started. This is how many cleaning businesses, many lawn care businesses, many of our service businesses in particular. A lot of our food trucks, a lot of really good small businesses have been started in this program. There is an additional ask. They have been appropriated. In the governor's budget, there is an appropriation of four hundred and ninety three thousand dollars, and they're asking for eighty seven more to take it up to five eighty one. And I would ask, what's your pleasure? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I recall that specificity because that's how much they needed for some sort of federal match. Is that right? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: That is a different one. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's that's the the arts council. Okay. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: And why eighty seven thousand six hundred sixty four dollars? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: She said, and I don't Matthew, can we refer to you again? This program has been level funded for [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the last four years. It was a little bit of chewing up to current costs, and they're also asking to add have an SCE position in Chittenden County, your CVO, your service regional Oh, okay. [Member David Weeks]: Oh, lots of dogs. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: People think they're extra burden. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: You should've said [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Did you say Rodboots? [Member David Weeks]: No. No. No. That's why I said no. Hello, Rodboots. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: God. Hello, Rose. So this is trueing up, and this is basically bringing it up to current cost fees. Okay. So I would support this section. What do I hear from other members? Right. Here it is. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, David? Well, increase notes. Randy? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Again, was that an increase we're gonna be used for? And [Member Thomas Chittenden]: to true up based on [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the level of funding for [Member Thomas Chittenden]: the past few years, I'm saying something from that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yep. You [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: wanna restate what you said about not specific otherwise, though? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I can add my with [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the program, I've been level funded for four years. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: So in part, it's trueing up the current costs, and then they're they're asking to add a half time FTE in the CDOEO service region because of extra demand in that area. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The demand is so high in this program, and we used to fund it at a million bucks, and it's hard to see it have been reduced so much in the last couple years. I'd be [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I'd be inclined to go along with it as an economic development tool, one hand, for now. But as as I say, what what is still absolutely essential to this, and I don't know who'll be able to do it by tomorrow is when all of this is to add a measurement mechanism for return on this investment. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. But I think hundred. Yeah. I would [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: be happy to share with you the data from twenty twenty four. [Member David Weeks]: That's across [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: all all outputs and outcomes of this [Member David Weeks]: of this program. The comments across. It's not targeting one particular term. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: That's correct. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, so [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: this is [Chair Alison Clarkson]: all that cap [Member Thomas Chittenden]: or county. [Assistant]: This is five [Chair Alison Clarkson]: hundred eighty one thousand dollars for all five cap agencies. So, I mean, this is not going to one replace. This is going to all our counties, all our all our constituents. But most of the Except for the ones in [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: But I very much like to figure a way to that this bill to add at least the outlines of a mes measurement mechanism may well be to test someone to come back to us with a performance measurement for all this these funding, this particular additional funding. One one person to basically check out on all these appropriations? Well, no. No. Essentially, what what we would would do is assign some agency of government. Mhmm. Well And it may be it may be ACCG back with a with with an outline as to how they will measure whether or not the Yeah. How objectives of these particular organizations with with the additional funding they were provided has, in fact, form relative to additional benefits of the additional fund that [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: you know. Past has the same risk. [Speaker 17 ]: I I just within some of this conversation, I thought it might be helpful just to give one note about something you might see in the table I provided. I just wanna you may see that there are some numbers that are highlighted in red, and I just wanna call out the fact that the the changes in funding or that are within this bill, those refer to base funding appropriations that were recommended by the governor. And so the difference there is actually an increase in base funding the way it's written right now. So anything in black would be one time, and then red is sort of base funding. And I just wanna bring that up to the comment of the level funding for the last four years. The way this is in here now, it's contemplating an increase in the base, so this is also moving forward. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: Yeah. Sure. I might encourage us to consider the three hundred thousand for two c to one time rather than base. I just that's a big chunk of money, and I I don't know if that's if this argument [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: is strong enough to make it based. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: But maybe it was. I just said I'd have to review my notes. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You know? And quite honestly, that's the work of the Appropriations Committee. They they move this around, and they will make a decision about what's onetime, what's based, and what works. That works. I think They have a lot more time than we needed. Okay. Thank you for that, Patrick. That is also a new program, a new suggestion from Ellen Keller, which is the small it's the last one in this section. But she, as you recall, Barry Antroff didn't try to initially do this with this Vermont training program. Didn't quite work. That was a a a square peg trying to get through Randoll. Instead, she worked with Linda Rossi at the Vermont Small Business Development Center to train. This is a a a program designed to really train and coach our small business owners and entrepreneurs. And I think this is a pack it's it's sort of a pilot design. Is it it doesn't have a it doesn't have a report back yet, but it does it, Greg? [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: They're kinda report back in the site. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. It's putting in so part of me would love to put in a report back in a year or two to find out to find out how how many it's actually served and, you know, a a report back on its effectiveness. But I think and I said this yesterday if we're looking, I think, generally. I think the more we train our business owners and entrepreneurs, the fewer problems you know, better train them. The fewer problems get down the line in terms of labor practices and all sorts of other challenges. I think I feel very strongly that good managers need to be trained right from the start, and people are much happier working for people who are better trained as better managers. So I I would support this work and feel strongly that this is would improve core business practices and help them strategic learn how to strategically plan, help them figure out how to use resources that exist for them, and train them in better business. So and succession planning if that's a need, which is a big need for a lot of our, entrepreneurs who are aging out. So, I support this is all I guess I can say. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I have to leave it [Chair Alison Clarkson]: a longer. I'm sure. Oh, right. And I've let you turn into a pumpkin. Let's see if we can finish this. And if not, I'll finish it, Seth. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Yeah. But [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm fine with all all [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the rest. If that helps you, if you need. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, thank you. Okay. That's a straw poll. Okay. Great. So guest is Chitman Clarkson, and we'll find out from location. Ram, David, how do you feel about this? Yeah. I'm good. Okay. Okay. Thanks. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Thank [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you. Thank you, Thomas. Now we turn to the Vermont Arts Council, and this is and the two things. One is just supporting their work, which is weird. I'm gonna restrain myself this time. And the there are two parts to this. One is the building a database for our Vermont film industry and film and media industry, and the other is just creating a home for the creative economy and having our council space funding in our in our jurisdiction. It it is in the budget, and their increase, I believe, is in the budget as well because they have to be federally managed. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: It's in the government's. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I believe, Patrick, if the whole thing is in the governor's recommend, is it not, or just the [Member David Weeks]: No. The sixty eight thousand is not. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. But At sixty eight is not. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: That that's because of federal [Chair Alison Clarkson]: That's [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: the assume federal increase, which the state wouldn't They [Chair Alison Clarkson]: always matches it. So I And if you They never [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: The issue, though, is if that increase does not occur, does this lie to which [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Then, well, then they will be matched at whatever it is. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: Okay. That's that's the day I was working. That is not [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's it's it's a required federal match. [Member David Weeks]: What what are we going when are we going to stop this morning? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We are going to stop stop. I was hoping to stop at twelve thirty, but it with your indulgence, I'd love to just finish this one bill. But I'm also happy to stop right now. [Member David Weeks]: I really wanna grab some lunch. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. It's a long day. Yeah. [Member David Weeks]: My recommendation is since we've already lost [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you We will start again at four thirty. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: I I [Member David Weeks]: think that's [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you, David Weeks. I appreciate. Just trying to You know me. I'm a little energizer for me. I will sit here until we're I know. So thank you. [Vice Chair Randy Brock]: We all have other things too too. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We do. And eating lunch at two thirty yesterday was not good for me. Yeah. So Of course. I apologize, but I think we are gonna have to stop. This is when we had set time to stop, and we will pick it up at four four or four thirty depending on when committees are done.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Economic Development - 2025-03-13-8:30 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: