VSBA supports S.227s intent but urges drafting fixes, inclusion of volunteers and caution on superintendent authority

Mark Hennig, director of policy services and legislative affairs for the Vermont School Boards Association, told the House Education Committee on April 7 that his group supports the intent of S.227 as it emerged from Senate Education but urged several drafting clarifications and cautions.

Hennig said VSBA and legislative counsel reworked earlier language so the bill sets policy and procedure rather than embedding every detail in statute. "We the VSBA is in favor of the intent of this language when it came to senate ed a month ago," he said, adding that members and counsel had "got it all cleaned up" and that "they all got made, so we're happy with the general bill." He encouraged the committee to allow district-level flexibility while keeping core protections statewide.

Why it matters: The bill would affect how schools respond to immigration-related requests and who at a school serves as a resource for such matters. Hennig urged the committee to make sure the definitions in the bill travel through every relevant section so people who are part of school operations are clearly covered.

Key drafting suggestions and legal concern

Hennig recommended explicitly including "volunteers along with independent contractors, employees, teachers, students" in the statutes definition of "school," noting that volunteers already undergo background checks and should not be treated as an afterthought. "If you do think volunteer should be added, also in d 3, it talks about students and staff. You might wanna include both volunteers and independent contractors in that language," he said.

Hennig also pointed to a potential statutory conflict in language that would make the superintendent "the sole individual to approve an agreement required by federal or state law." He said he was not offering legal advice but that an existing statute cited in the testimony, "20 VSA 46 52" (as read into the record), appears to limit authority over certain agreements to the governor in consultation with the attorney general. "So saying the superintendent has the authority goes against what we are kept in law," Hennig said, and asked the committee to have legislative counsel reconcile the language.

Concerns about unfunded mandates and training

Committee members raised whether the bill would impose new, unfunded duties on districts by requiring a superintendent to designate a liaison at each school. One member noted that in many schools the role could fall to an existing employee (principal, guidance counselor or behavior specialist) rather than require a new hire, but said the fiscal impact should be clear on the record.

On training and operational impact, Hennig said most of the work could be handled as routine orientation: "It will probably be the training at the start of the year that all teachers, they'll just say this is just let you know if this happens. This is our procedures. These are processed, so I don't see it lost involved in there. It'll be an extra 15 minutes of start up in the the first week of school." He added that the primary financial exposure would be legal costs if a district refused access and the refusal led to litigation.

Next steps

Committee members took note of Hennigs drafting concerns and asked that legislative counsel clarify the governor/attorney-general versus superintendent authority issue when counsel returns. The committee paused scheduling for further testimony while awaiting the attorney generals office; no vote on S.227 occurred in this session.