Mn.gov



[Judy] Kyle, can you hear me? This is Judy, can you hear me? Thank you. [Mary] Judy, are we ready to go? [Judy] I believe that we are, looks good. [Mary] All right, I'll call the meeting to order then, the family childcare taskforce. And I don't really have any introduction for tonight So I'd rather save the time for us to be able to go forward and do our work. And so, let's see, I think about one of the things we need to do is approve the December meeting minutes. Judy, did you have a process for that? I don't remember. [Judy] I think what we've done is a voice call for people to say approved. And if there's any objection we've gone on or the plan has been to gone onto a roll call, but we don't go there if we don't need to. [Mary] Okay, all right, I'll call for a motion to approve the December meeting minutes. (indistinct) [Mary] They've been moved. All those in favor, say aye. [All] Aye. [Woman] Aye. [Mary] Opposed. Okay, minutes from the December meeting are approved and just to let you know that final task force meeting will be on January 28th, that'll be the last meeting of this taskforce. So, just to let you know that reminder that is the case, and with that, we are able to go into our business discussion according to the agenda here discussion part one. And this is the second draft of the taskforce report. And so, we have time now to open it up for discussion, the second draft, and by the way this was sent out. and question I have for you, Judy, is there was some redrafting of some things in this particular version are the underlying the changes, additions, how do we know what was changed? [Judy] What I did in this version was to make the changes that you signed off on in the past two meetings. Hold on just a second, I am getting an echo and I'm not sure why. Okay, I incorporated the changes that you discussed and signed off by hand gesture in the past two meetings. I did not do strike outs and show you those changes. What I have done is where you were asked... Work group heads were asked to look at the introductions and to submit any changes and where those changes were substantive, I've highlighted those. Some of the groups had follow on work to do and where those changes were substantive they are highlighted. So the changes that we need to discuss today that we have not discussed previously are the ones that are highlighted in gray, those are a new language or in orange, those are suggested deletions. The other thing that you may have seen and this is... We had some conversation, but not a full conversation of the group about including a recommendation to continue or not to continue or whatever. And in the version that was sent out on Thursday, I had some draft language in there. Upon discussion, leadership group decided it was out of scope for what we'd been asked to do. And so, we're not putting that recommendation in this draft report so the draft got them on, I believe it was Friday clarified that, okay? So, we can talk a bit about how we handle the discussion of what happens next as we go through it. So, that's where we're at, so I can give you a little more discussion about what we've done and what's coming and then we can dive right in. So, again, I made the edits per the last two December meetings, I included changes to the introductions where they were not substantive changes. I did not highlight them, where they were substantive I did. I removed some of the references. Remember, we started out early in one of our conversations with funding would be needed here and funding would be needed there. And then kind of came to a moment where we said, Well, funding is gonna be needed everywhere." So, I took out those references I missed one, I will take that out, so, assume most things cost money. There we are, okay. So, I wanna focus tonight, we'll do the review of the report, we'll go through the areas that are highlighted. I'm just gonna take them one by one walk through. When we get to, I believe it's work group five where there was some significant rewrite, I wanna go through that whole section because it's a piece of the whole. So, I don't wanna take it item by item, I wanna read the whole thing and then get your thoughts and then we can go back to specific items if we need to. We'll do the same kind of process we've done before which is to check are we agreed something is in or out by raising our hands, and that's that. I think there's one of the changes maybe a procedural issue at something I didn't catch that, I think we had a pretty strong agreement in a group and then a suggestion was made to change it. So we'll address that when we get to that. After we have gone through the report, we're going to look back at some of the table items, to see if now that we've seen the report in total, we need to address any of the tables items or leave them tables, so that's what we'll do. And then in terms of next steps, which is like after today, after tonight, I'll take any substantive changes you make and do edits to reflect those. I'm gonna ask my friends at MAD who are supporting us and my colleagues at DHS to do some of the spelling, grammar, formatting, accessibility edits which everyone in my life knows I should not be trusted to do any of those, so we'll be getting help with that. And then prior to the 28th, you will see the formatted, double-checked, grammatically correct document for your review so the goal on the 28th is a formal vote on the report. And then the other thing we'd like to do on the 28th is then have the conversation to say, and this isn't the end of all the conversations ever about family childcare. So, what conversations need to continue? What might some of the topics be? What might some of the focus need to be for the future? So, we do have a number of legislators who are sitting right here in this group who can hear what those are. So whether there's a formal recommendation for them or not, the word will be getting into people if there's interest. and certainly there's lots of venues for conversation. So, that's the plan, hope that's okay. Everybody's had enough coffee to get through this tonight. [Mary] Well, I think the biggest thing, Judy is going to be clarity, I printed out the report and when I hear about yellow highlights and different things, I don't find it and I looked at it on my online version as well. So, I'll just go with it as we go, but just don't just assume that all that came through. [Judy] Got it, so as I go through, if I forget someone, please, do the equivalent of kicking me under the table and remind me to say what page we are on, and what line we are on because we've got those markers as well. So we can use that to tell where we are. All right? [Mary] I do not find any page numbers, Judy. [Judy] Really? They're on the bottom right-hand corner. [Lisa] This is Representative Demuth I also printed it and I don't have any yellow highlighted nor page numbers on my copy either. [Judy] How odd? [Mary] It also is not the one... It is also in the one that was attached and sent out, it's not there as well. [Hollee] All my pages are (indistinct). [Judy] Excuse me, one at a time. [Ariane] This is Ariane and I ran into that 'cause I tried printing it live, but the when I downloaded it and printed it, it printed with each line number and then the page numbers, and then the highlighting and stuff like that. It didn't do that for you, Hollee? [Judy] Okay. [Mary] I downloaded mine and also did not still have that. [Judy] This is a great mystery cause this is the same formatting that I used when we'd sent the last version to you. So, nothing's changed in terms of format, but I'm sure that somewhere in the ethernet there's a gremlin at work here. All right, I will do mine... [Hollee] I told Jake was on the last copy too, they all said page 10 at the bottom. [Judy] But it's one of those mysteries of life and I already don't like technology. So, just add this to the list of complaints. I will try my best to give you roadmap instructions for where we are, and we'll hopefully all get to the same place. So we are fine on the introduction and we get to the findings and recommendations in Duty 1, all of that is good. So, if you get to the page that has Duty 2 and that's where we're gonna pick up our conversation. So in Duty 2 you have the bolded paragraph at the beginning, that's the statement from the statute about what the Duty is, and then the first paragraph after that at least on my copy is a gray highlighted area, no wonder everyone was confused about what we're talking about tonight, answers it. So, that first paragraph was a suggestion, now this was in response to asking what group are the introductory paragraphs accurate and complete and this was a suggestion that came back. So, if you've had a chance to take a look at it? Please do. [Jessica] Judy, you want me to say that? [Judy] Yeah, that might be helpful just to kind of get this copy up in front since whatever is going on with. [Ann] Judy, I was just gonna say what's she's doing. If you open it and track changes, then you see it. Maybe that's the issue people are having. [Mary] That means if you're on a laptop, not everybody is on a laptop. Those tracking changes is specific to a... What would you call that? The software? [Judy] Yeah, it's particular program, so if you don't have the right one. All right so we'll just watch online as Jess helps us scroll through and find the right pages here, so, thanks Jess. [Judy] All right so you can see this, the proposed addition here is... Gone, Jess, what happened? There we go, (chuckling) okay. Surveys reviewed by the task force show that the loss of thousands of licensed family childcare providers over the last decade is predominantly due to burdensome regulations, licensing inconsistencies or we could say ever changing regulation and changing interpretations of existing regulation and increased paperwork. Providers have requested clear expectations consistency and fairness in enforcement of the rules and regulations in place to protect them. So, that's the suggestion for an addition in the language for Duty 2, Now that you've had a chance to look at it and hear it, any comments? [Stephanie] This is Stephanie, are you hearing me okay? And do I not sound like a chipmunk today? [Judy] Well, you sound a little bit like a tin can, but it's okay. [Stephanie] I can call on if that's easier, interrupt me if you're not understanding me. One just thought is I wanna make sure that that language is aligned with all the surveys we analyzed. I know burdensome regulation was wording from the NMD survey, but we did look at multiple surveys. And I just wonder too, if some of the comments could be tied to the second sentence that talks about providers have requested versus being in any sort of, not necessarily contradiction but not being in alignment with the survey language that we analyzed. And I'm just coming up that more with my data and survey hat on not saying that that's obviously ever changing regulation and changing interpretations is something we've discussed, but making sure the language around the survey is consistent with those surveys, and if that is something we wanted to say in the report, that it could go potentially in the next sentence that allows for more commentary and flexibility of language. [Judy] Okay, so Judy, say again what you haven't, yes. [Mary] I would just like to know if Stephanie says she would prefer not to have the yellow highlighted language and leave it as is, is that what you're intending, Stephanie to not make the change to the yellow highlighted language? [Stephanie] I guess that's my initial thought, and if there's something that is desired to be included in the yellow highlighted that it could go on the next sentence, which allows for more flexibility in language based on being providers have requested which the same time has been clear from our conversation. [Ann] Can I ask a clarifying question, Judy? [Judy] Someone was asking a clarifying... (indistinct) [Ann] I was just trying to understand, is the only thing I'm looking at as impossible added here is what's highlighted in yellow, or is the whole gray section new, I guess I'm confused? [Judy] The whole gray section is new. So it's not an edit to an existing paragraph. So the whole gray section is new, Cynthia Cunningham. [Cynthia] Stephanie, could you, why let's try again. [Mary] We can hear you Cynthia, we can hear you Cynthia. [Cynthia] Okay, thank you, put the headset on, I don't know what's going on, I hate technology. Okay, so Stephanie, could you, I mean, I have a comment about the whole paragraph, but Stephanie, could you like if you were to reword it, could you state what you would think potentially that paragraph could say? [Stephanie] Maybe I will I don't mean to answer a question with a question but, my main point is that we read actually use the language that is in the yellow highlight and are read consistently because when you use data from a survey you should really try to use the language in that survey. And I've looked at a couple of them, I haven't, we've looked at multiple servings and the one that we did and that one talked about burdensome regulations use those exact words, so, maybe there's a comment here that says Hollee, so, Hollee offered this suggestion, but if the point more for to get across the concern around ever changing regulations and changing interpretation of regulations I have no concern with that being a concern but more concerned with whether we're actually summarizing the survey results in the way that using language that was in those surveys. So, Stephanie, if I could summarize what I hear Stephanie saying, she's okay with the gray, but that the yellow highlighted is in the wrong place, that it is in the same sentence that is using surveys reviewed by, and that that yellow highlight doesn't belong there. I'm fine with the cold gray section minus the yellow. Anybody else feels that way though, gray section is fine, skip to yellow, I think they're redundant, burdensome regulations ever-changing licensing and changing interpretation, very, very similar. I agree with Stephanie, stick with the survey language which is largely been stated burdensome regulations and licensing and consistency and just take that yellow part out. [Judy] All right, can you... I think there's just confusion. Assuming there didn't need to be, I put, get, as it says or we could say, you know instead of saying burdensome regulations and licensing inconsistencies, I was offering an alternative to the few words before that. I think the gray area is the best part, I was offering an alternative to make it easier but apparently that was made it more confusing. That's why I highlighted as an alternative. So, the gray area is the main part. [Judy] All right, so, is the gray area minus the yellow acceptable to the group? I don't know that we need to debate this too much further. [Ann] I will just raise the question of whether all the interpretation that was the reason... (audio distorting) [Judy] Ann you just broke up, can you say that again? I'm just making sure we're comfortable with the word predominantly weight, absolutely was a large part of the survey. But as Stephanie said, we looked at lots of surveys and I don't remember, it seems like a hundred years ago when we last did due to number two. So, I can't remember what our language was. But predominant... [Hollee] Burden regulations was the thing listed in the presentation on the MMB survey. It was the first thing listed as the reason and in the chalet presented by MCCP with more than 2,000 respondents like this family childcare response providers responding burdensome regulations was of thing as well. [Mary] Since I wasn't part of the earlier survey review before I came onto the project and the MNB survey was the first thing I'm wondering if it sounds like burdensome regulations, licensing and consistencies in increased paperwork are consistent with the surveys that you reviewed. The question is predominantly whether that's okay. So, here's my friendly proposal, gray language strikes the word predominantly and say is in part due to strike the yellow language. [Mary] Judy that's not fair, this is Mary. I'm just striking predominantly clearly what Hollee said and what I have heard over the past years I have been involved in numerous things, I think we're beating up on this way too much. We could use the word instead of just leave it alone, I think we will all understand that's the whole point of it here. [Ann] I was just asking what we had used in the... I thought this Judy was reported back (audio distorting), and that's what I was trying to get at is what language did we use in Duty number two in year one? And is this a significant change from it? I absolutely know from all the surveys we've looked at, it's a large part, I just didn't know if we were comfortable with the word predominantly, because there were things like healthcare and plan leaving the field, but making sure. [Judy] Yeah, clearly it's a part, okay. So, again, are we fine with the gray language minus the yellow highlighted words? [Cynthia] Can anybody hear me? Anybody hear me? This is Cindy, sorry, I don't understand the purpose to add a paragraph into this whole thing at that point, if we do, I mean, I think it's apparent, I don't know that any of this paragraph needs to be there, and if it does, I think that there needs to be a tweak done by Stephanie, Ann or somebody who's into those surveys and make sure that the language is aligned with that survey parts, I think providers have requested clear expectations consistency that part of it, sure we have enough, but I don't understand why we need this paragraph at all again, if it's there, I think those who have access to the surveys need to clarify the language outside of this meeting and we present next time. [Hollee] Can we take a show of hands and just ask for a vote to see who agrees with having the gray language. And then if we need to dig into, I have the surveys pulled up right now, I have the presentation from MMB that has the language if anyone doesn't believe me. [Ann] Can we also looked at the language we used in the previous report because that was also quite a bit, (audio distorting) if I recall. [Hollee] And what we've since met on Duty, we've had a Judy to work groups since then and so we can add language to that. I mean, there's things to fix on Duty 1's language as well. [Judy] All right, so, let's look at the gray language, we're not going to look at the yellow language. I think there's, I'm going to make an executive decision, we're not looking at the yellow language, look at the gray language. Are you in favor of having that language in Duty 2? Raise your hands. Keep your hands up. Okay, this is not a helpful system. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. We have a nine in favor. If you're not in favor of the gray language being part of the report, raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay, I show that not including it wins, but I wouldn't want to stake my life on it since moving... [Hollee] I'm sorry... [Judy] Moving your pixels again, I know I'm gonna ask for, I want to do that again because you're all moving around on my little screen, just really for someone who has borderline ADHD and a problem with details this sends me right over the edge. So, again, if you're in favor of the gray language being in the report raise your hands and Jess, please count with me please. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. Okay, I'm showing 11 against. If you are against raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven 11 to seven, just a sec. [Mary] Judy, were we voting the first vote? And you said 11 it was for what? [Judy] The gray language to be included in this section? [Mary] Just the gray minus the yellow voting for it, that was eleven? [Judy] Yes, Jess was I accurate or close to it? [Jessica] Yeah, 12 to eight. [Judy] 12 to eight, 11 to seven. Okay, I would trust her numbers more than mine clearly. Okay, do we need to do any more discussion of the gray language? No, I'm gonna suggest we move on. Okay, now we're on to recommendations 2.9, Jess can you pull that document up again? Jess on your page, it's gonna be page 15. It's my computer glyphs since I can't read hard copy, there you are. All right, so, this might be a procedural issue, we'd asked folks to look at the introductory language. Hollee had suggested this alternative for 2.9 but I believe that this is one where we actually had a pretty robust conversation and had landed on the language that is suggested to be replaced, review county licensor forms and their use. So... [Kim] And this is just the one that brought this up and I have this transcript from the November meeting and it says, you know if you can all get on screen, I'm gonna ask you if should we just leave it for blah, blah, blah and this says, okay, present, we haven't majority say leave it as it is. And so, I suspect as we talk later about the future of this and or any other task force that this might be one of those issues that gets unpacked over time but for now that's where we're going. [Judy] Okay, so, it's a procedural thing it was already agreed to by the task force to leave it as is. So that's the language that's in the, on that right-hand column where it says replaced review committee or review county licensing forums and their use. So, unless there's a groundswell from the group saying we should go with the revised language, we will go back to that original language that we agreed upon as a group. [Mary] Judy this is Mary, and I would like to ask Kim a question, Kim, could you explain, it seems so straightforward, only required forms listed in ruler statute and any form suggests about a county are identified as optional. Can you help me to understand why that is such a problem? [Kim] I've talked about this many times, we have some forms I can only speak for my county that make the licensing process easier for us and for the providers. For instance, there are things that we need or have to do that aren't necessarily on DHS documents. For instance, there's an application that providers have to fill out, and on there, if you are an applicant it doesn't list what parts of the home that you use. So, in Dakota County, we send them a form that asks what part of the home that you use so that we can know if we need to do a fire inspection. Another part of what our job is, is doing an interview and what a few counties do is have some interview questions that we send out to provider applicants first so that we don't have to spend an hour interviewing them especially during times of the pandemic, there's just it... [Kim] I understand the concern that there are workers out there that might be doing things they shouldn't be, but this seriously would make our jobs and the provider’s jobs and getting licensed. I'm speaking mostly for applicants. Actually the travel and activity form that we use, some medication forms that we use, none of them are required by law, they're just really helpful. I would like to hear from other people, I've talked about this so much, we all know how I feel about this. [Mary] Yes, I do Kim, but this is today and we're voting on it. So I wanted to be sure. One of my questions though is... [Kim] Excuse me, I need to say we already voted on it. And now this is speaking of sneaking things in, this is now snuck in, we already voted on this. I just read how we voted. [Hollee] I'm sorry, just, my integrity was just questioned. I'm not trying to sneak anything in. It was made very clear for the task force that this is not a final version in anything we voted on before the recommendations, before we would be discussing things and then nothing was final until we discussed the final draft and that we would be discussing, we could be discussing things in detail later. So, I'm not trying to sneak anything in, let me win over Duty 2, it just seemed that there was confusion that it wasn't clear. And so, I just went in to try and help make it clear what we were intending, not gonna... That's fine if it's it's taken out, but to be accused of trying to sneak something in was really not fair. [Judy] This is Judy and let's call it, we're simply looking at a suggestion and we are also looking at a process. This is on me for not catching what we had agreed to in a previous meeting and we did say we wouldn't relitigate all the things that we've talked about. So at this point, I believe understand the intent of the proposed language, and we understand the intent of the original language that's off there on the right-hand side. So I would like to have a show of hands. So, Jess, I'm gonna ask you to take this back down so I can see and I want to ask you if you are in favor of retaining the original language? Which if I put my right glasses on, I can read to you. And I hate this getting old stuff. So, the original language was review county licensing forms and their use, if you were in favor of retaining the original language, raise your hand. And Jess help me count please. [Judy] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. (indistinct) [Jessica] If they can tell us who they are. [Judy] Okay, Amy, I can't hear you represented was. Nope, still can't hear you. All right, those opposed, those who do not want to stick to the original language, raise your hands. So, if you want to substitute, yes. Okay, so, by a show of hands we're going to stick with the original language there. All right, now let's move on to Duty 4. So, we're on page 16. [Mary] I have a question for you, Judy. [Judy] Yeah. [Mary] Was the last meeting a final vote or a discussion, and is this meeting a final vote or a discussion? [Judy] Well, they are discussions, but at some point I'm wondering if we call the question on the discussion and that's my point. We had a discussion and landed in the spot, we had a suggestion made, we discussed it somewhat. If you wanna discuss it further, that's fine. But we just had a majority of folks saying they wanted to stick with the original language. [Mary] After being told that you're being sneaky and some other kinds of language, it doesn't earn some goodwill, it's very disappointing that the task force can tolerate people being called names on the task force, and it doesn't exactly lead itself to what we really want is consensus. And you may not like that Judy but it's very difficult to sit in if that someone has said that to you, I think that would be very much appreciated either, so. (indistinct chattering) So we're gonna go forward, we're gonna have the discussion.... [Kim] Myself, there have been times throughout this entire task force where people have said, bringing legislation in the back way, sneaking legislation in, I did not mean, I didn't say a name. I just was very surprised that there was something different than what we agreed upon. I apologize, Hollee if I hurt your feelings and offended you and I mean that, I truly mean that. [Hollee] Thanks, Kim. [Judy] All right, do I have your permission to move forward? All right, let's move on to Duty 4, page 16. Jeff, can you put that back up please? All right so, I made a note here that group four reordered the recommendations for consistency with other sections and there were no significant changes made to the intent of the recommendations, so they're not highlighted and they're not new information for review. Yeah, and it was clarifying remember, that this was the section where the group said, well, it's legislative action and it applies to DHS and the counties, the, you know, had multiple attributions, they reorganized things to fall into the same categories that the other groups followed. Now, if you go down to recommendation 4.9. There is comment here and the group four asks, if this item should be dropped, unclear who this recommendation would go to and it was the lowest item on their list. So, remember, this was out of a conversation about all the people who ought to know about family childcare and the business requirements that they have. It's currently plopped in the area that says recommendations for DHS, but it's not really a DHS recommendation. So, provide training for tax preparers, business advisors financial advisors, commercial lenders, insurers and others who serve childcare providers to better understand and serve the industry and to build the ecosystem of support. So, anybody from group four wanna speak to your thought process on that. [Scott] Sure, this is Scott and I'll speak on behalf of the dream team. There aren't a lot of changes to our stuff as Judy said so eloquently, but I want to assure the full task force on behalf of Duty group four, we heard you last time, we did discuss it, Senator Wiklund and Michelle Leonhart and I did a preliminary review of the feedback from the committee then we took it to the full subcommittee of the subcommittee and this is what we are, you know, bringing forward. But I just wanna go on the record saying we did hear you, the comment about 4.9 which actually gets stay 4.9, even though we reordered it from the first one is as much as we think this may be a lovely idea as Judy said, who owns it, how it's funded, and you know, with the fact that resources aren't gonna be, you know planting any money trees, anytime in the near future perhaps this is just something that falls off. And there was nobody on our group that is willing to stand up and down and shout to keep this. So, I personally would say, let's drop it, and I think the committee would probably nod or say, you know, whatever makes sense. So, that is our recommendation on the one about the old 4.3 which would be the infrastructure regarding the, which is actually now 4.7 about the mentors, coaches, and consultants. We did clean that up, no substantive changes, but based upon your feedback to make it a little bit clearer, and again, ultimately at the end of the day how do we help mentors, coaches and consultants be the most successful that they are compensate, I'll use that in your quotes as much as possible for their time, and to ensure that the folks can leverage how they teach the next generation going forward. We also acknowledge that not everyone on this committee will be in favor of public financing for these things, we fully acknowledge that, the reason I say that is that in many of these cases awareness of the programs tie back to the one-stop shop which is our number one and will always be our number one recommendation. And we think the rest of the task force agrees with that too, but in cases where it's implied that dollars would be put in for programs, it doesn't necessarily mean create a new thing leveraging stuff that's already in place, and again, the example that I know my team is tired of me bringing up probably is in greater Minnesota in places where loan to values on rural homes are stretched and are probably putting near 100%, I'm putting $20,000 into your house to become a safe place to be a licensed childcare provider, no bank is gonna touch it, it probably doesn't make sense, so can you leverage your program that's already there? It's really going in where the marketplace isn't performing where the marketplace has failed or where, you know, private sources don't work. So this is not about creating a bunch of new stuff but being smarter with what we have, making investments where it makes sense and really realizing that the marketplace is not working especially in some of the smallest communities. So, that's, again, all I have Judy you know what I've said maybe obvious, but if you're okay with what we have, we'd like to move this forward as is with probably dropping four nine, and I know that would take a group vote. [Judy] All right, thanks for that recap of the group four conversation. [Scott] If anybody on the team disagrees with what I said, please chime in I just, I talk the fastest, so, I'll summarize it. [Judy] Anyone else from team four? All right, so the suggestion before you is to drop a 4.9, is there anyone not in support of dropping 4.9? Okay, so, I'm gonna take that as a go ahead and drop 4.9, yes. [Lauryn] Hey Scott. [Scott] Yes. [Lauryn] Can 4.9 be modified just to say, encourage tax preparer’s business fighters, et cetera, et cetera to better understand and serve the industry? As part of that awareness you're talking about I'm not totally taken off the table but have it as a point of interest that you know for looking at community and partnership involvement that there is that gap there. [Scott] That's a wonderful point, Lauryn and I appreciate you saying that. I think our group would certainly be in favor of that. I think where it got a little bit confusing for us is to respect the matrix of DHS counties or providers. We weren't sure how to fit that in, but you know, Lauryn makes a great suggestion if that can come in without it being in one of the big bucket homes, but yes. The folks in four nine are critical to the ecosystem especially in communities where there may be only one provider in those buckets. So, I think unless anybody else on our subcommittee disagrees we'd welcome that fit can live somewhere. [Judy] All right so, I'm hearing this suggestion to drop provide training too and say encourage tax preparers, et cetera. So, keep the rest of text of 4.9 and to find a home for it. It could be something as recommendations to other agencies to other stakeholders. [Ann] Jess, Judy, this is Ann I just have a suggestion and then we'll get to it in a minute. You'll recall that we also dropped a recommendation that we went round and round about around the parent aware, that's also about encouraging economic development entity or I'm sorry, counties to understand early childhood as economic development, I wonder if we don't have a handle of these kinds of things that are more aspirational or I think the argument among others was that who does it and it costs money. So, you know, maybe there's some of these that we think are important, but aren't fitting neatly into each of our duties that could just be captured as a catch all either at the end or I don't know, but it sounded enough like the parent aware one to five, throw it in. [Erin] This is Erin, and I remember that Ann and I would be in full support of that as well, especially with what I do and being in communities that are finding partnerships to complete those, I think that if we left them in a bucket that way someone would find a way. [Scott] So to the comments from Erin and Lauryn and I'll ask Judy are the co-chairs, are we bound by the constraints of only these to, we have a aspirational closing statement with these critical suggestions or are we out of bounds? [Mary] Well, this is Mary, I think if you go to this whole situation of, this is the task force duty and responsibility, so, we've had many things before that have wanted to be included and that came to the same thing of it's not in our scope. It also said, you know, you can release this report and you can make your own comments, Scott. I don't know if we create another bucket on the very end but putting it in here where DHS, it just isn't the place to put it and we don't know where else to put it, then that leaves us with not having it in at all, this doesn't mean it isn't worthy we've said that to others. It does not mean it isn't worthy. [Judy] Okay so I'm gonna suggest, and I'm gonna count on my colleague Jess to help keep me honest on this. I want to park this 4.9 until we've looked at some of the other items as well, that parent or where one in particular to see if they co-located somewhere here in the report, and if they make sense as recommendations to others to other departments, remember we had some things that cross department lines. So, Jess helped keep me honest that we're gonna come back to 4.9, I suspect others on the group will keep me honest as well, I hope so. All right, so, let's move on then to Duty 5, and Duty 5 was a significant rewrite based on the rather robust conversation that we had in one of those December meetings. So perhaps a Duty 5 folks wanna talk because this has changed both the two the introductory work as well as reordering, rewording, retooling of the recommendations, so Duty 5? Who would like to speak to that? [Liz] We worked a lot on this. Let's see here, do you wanna just go over like the duty Ariane, hello? Can everyone hear me? We can hear you, Ariane, you were muted. [Ariane] Sorry, so the Duty 5 scope or parameters or to develop recommendations for alternative childcare delivery system that could be more financially viable in smaller communities with unmet childcare capacity needs in greater Minnesota which could include multicenter bottles for large group family childcare or small capacity childcare centers. We spent a lot of time looking at this, and one of the things, one of the largest contributing factors is the decrease is a shortage of new licensed family childcare providers entering the field, and the rate of providers existing licensure remaining study. So, what we looked at if you go halfway down to the page two, 27, we really looked at Minnesota statute chapter 245A and Minnesota rule 9502, which allows several types of family license, several types of licensed family childcare, the most common model involves family childcare license holder, who is the primary provider of care and provides care for children in their home. Other childcare models, currently law under Minnesota statute sections 245A.14 subsection are called special family childcare license. And this is a point we really wanna highlight. Especially family childcare license is located somewhere all other than the license holders home including not residential settings such as churches, schools, employer-based settings, coal located family childcare and quote the pod model, where multiple licensed family childcare programs operate in the same building, special family childcare programs, location may impact requirements of the programs including department of agriculture, child and adult care food programs. So we really looked at the special family childcare license and that's kind of what we've come back to hone in on and that's what there are many economic challenges to traditional model, and the availability of childcare in the non-metropolitan areas are challenging. Alternative care model recommendations, reports are one component of addressing unmet childcare needs, other recommendation that report that support existed in a prospective family talk providers are critical to the part of the solution as well. The following is illustrates the balance of availability across this state. So as you can see in this map we're showing the, you know, our areas and our desert areas that are really lacking in childcare. We also looked at other models, the Dakota model and Montana model, along with Iowa's model. So in review our all attorneys the working group has several key discussion points. [Judy] Please scroll to the next page [Ariane] Highlight these, traditional model delivering family childcare where a primary caregiver provides childcare in their own home and should always be an option. The second point I'll turn, and I really wanna highlight this, alternative childcare delivery models should not be labeled family childcare even on smaller groups. So what we are recommending is if it is a true family childcare provider in their own home that would still be called family childcare. When it moves out of their home, we don't have a specific name for that yet but that would be part of the special family childcare license and we'll hit more of that as we go on. Minnesota already has some existing options and statutes that are understood, there is a demand in communities for alternative models that don't fit within the framework of existing statute and rule governing childcare. We all are aware home ownership is a barrier for potential providers in operating out of their own home can present challenges for existing providers, acquiring affordable, usable properties and spaces for alternative childcare models is challenging and requires the community investment. And alternative for childcare delivery models would offer an option between current licensed family childcare and licensed center-based childcare. Liz, I will let you take the recommendations for the legislative action. [Liz] Okay, all right so, as we know, childcare and society has definitely changed throughout the years. The miles that we have in place have not evolved and changed to meet the societal needs of families. This is not, I want to be very clear, this is not changing any of the other models, this is expanding on the special family childcare. So, our recommendation is that we clarify that family childcare is childcare provided in the license holders own residents. The license holder is the primary caregiver and can hold only one family childcare license. Number two, we clarify that the special family childcare means a provider that is operating in a residential setting other than their own home. This is very needed especially in greater Minnesota. Number three, we reclassify existing nonresidential based special family childcare to a new license type for programs currently operated under section 245A.14, sub 0.4 paragraph B through H and create a new section in chapter 245A. Clarify that these programs will continue to be governed by rule 9502, monitored by County Licensing Agency under 245A.16 and may not exceed a licensed capacity of 14. Again, nothing is fully changing other than, nothing is changing in the family childcare, we're not even changing capacity in this, okay? Number four, remodify current statute to allow an employer who holds a special family childcare license under 245A.14 sub 0.4B to operate up to three additional licensed programs for the benefit of the license holders employees. We'll get to that in a sec after, we have questions on that because that is also important because that is an innovative way. And it is a way to expand childcare especially in greater Minnesota and especially to those who cannot even afford a home, but would have community support to be in a place to take care of children. Number four, modify current statute to allow an employer who holds a special family childcare license under 245A.14, sub four B two, or I'm sorry. Read that modify a current statute to allow a church or religious organization who holds a special family childcare license under 245A.4 sub 4C to operate up to three additional licensed programs in the same building, these models are working in other states, this is why this is important to remember this. Number six, provide financial supports, tax credits or bonds to support communities and businesses and purchasing renovating or at least in properties for childcare facilities including leveraging underused space and anchor institutions such as nursing homes, hospitals, religious facilities, et cetera. Prioritize these supports to existing providers seeking to expand or modify their program. Hold on one sec, my computer set up. I was following that sorry. Okay, so we have also then the recommendation for DHS would be to convene a work group during 2122 to identify new models of large groups, small center childcare in non-residential settings that are not currently allowed under existing statutes. Number two would be also to increase awareness and provide technical assistance to licensed providers, businesses and communities to understand licensing distinctions between licensed in-home family childcare, special family childcare and childcare centers. Number three, assists current providers, businesses in communities, and understanding current flexibilities allowed under special family childcare for small scare scale facility options including the ability to allow multiple licensed family childcare providers to operate independently under one roof. The recommendations for county agencies would be to number one, to increase awareness and provide technical assistance to licensed providers, businesses, and communities to understand licensing distinctions between license in home, which again is not changing family childcare and special family childcare and childcare centers. Number two, we would assume it would be the recommendation to assist current providers, businesses, and communities and understanding current flexibilities allowed under special family childcare for small scale facility options including the ability to allow multiple licensed family childcare providers to operate independently under one roof. Why is this important that we move this forward is because again childcare and society has changed. The models we have in place have not evolved with societal needs of families. Due to this, the field itself can not grow. This taskforce, we were put together to help and put forth recommendations that will help grow the industry and curb the childcare crisis we are under especially in greater Minnesota. Currently the system does not have a career path that allows providers to expand their businesses and believe me, they are out there. These providers are talented, there are so many people that I have spoken to that if they even had this opportunity they would become a provider. So as I close this out, we have to be in an innovative and we have to better support the next big delivery system of an alternative childcare system is needed to grow the industry. This is what was asked of us, we have worked hard up for this. We have gone back and forth on different models. Again, family childcare, it is special, it's not going anywhere, it will stay here. It really evolved in the 1980s, okay? It's not going anywhere. This is not even a threat to family childcare, what this gives is actually the very opposite, it gives providers a chance to grow their business, and I know that every provider on this call tonight has been faced with that opportunity, but we couldn't we couldn't expand our business because we didn't have an option. And with this would even give us an option and it would give other people that have not had an option to even go into the field to become a provider which would help solve this childcare crisis. Questions? [Judy] Any questions or comments for group five? [Ami] This is representative Wazlawik, can you guys hear me? #NAME? [Ami] Okay. I've been having some audio issues tonight, that's why I've been in and out. I think group five, great work. I think this is sort of, you know, a lot of the, some of the conflict that we had around language and things like that, I think you did a really good job of working through that and coming up with some really good recommendations, the only little tidbit, and this is mostly for structure formatting issues is to just make sure that when we're talking about counties, we use counties instead of county agencies because county agencies aren't really a thing necessarily. So, just wanted to note that that we make that language consistent for all of them. Otherwise, I think great work. #NAME? [Cynthia] Can you hear me? [Judy] Yes. [Cynthia] I tried to different I'd sit here. One yes, comments to positive to Duty 5. I think one of the things that some of the discussions I've been in are also with the national association and the corporate value of family childcare is primary provider, small group, the age and in the alternative to center, which isn't any of the most things, this provides the opportunity for an expansion with that. I raised the question before just to clarify food program and how does that fit into these? Because I know of a provider who has a church base and the food program has denied them, do you know anything about them? [JoAnn] This is JoAnn, I've been working on this kind of exact same project and the same thing we are having issue with with the food program. 'Cause they're not in their home, they're in a commercial building or a different building other than their residents that they're not eligible for the food program, which is kind of a parent for some people wanting to go into that that don't have a lot of money for starting up a child care business. [Liz] And JoAnn and to your point that's exactly the issue. [Judy] Well, hold on, Liz, were you trying to answer? [Liz] was just saying like, JoAnn right there, when you just said they don't have money to start up a daycare. So, there's obviously some things that have to get worked out in this, but that's really sad to me that there are people that are being held back from a career because of money, especially when the state is pricing. #NAME? [Judy] Well, I just wanted to say because I am a member on the work group five. And so as we had the conversation I think the issue that people are bringing up is a current issue. And so, it doesn't address that because it doesn't change anything other than taking the kind of statutory framework and moving it into a new section of law, right into 245A to kind of separate out that in-home family childcare, family childcare doing it at a residential setting that all kind of stays the same nothing's changing, and none of the food program if there are issues there are changing, and then it just takes this and creates a new statutory framework without changing anything. So, the current concerns and issues and remember the food program is federally, you know, it's a federal program. So, all I'm saying is I think people can make notes of that, there's something in here the recommendation to convene a work group to look at that, there may be an opportunity to try and address that in the future. But, what I just wanna clarify I think I'm accurate is that it's an existing problem and it's not being changed and altered in any way by this, which means it will continue to be a problem, and it is something that I think merits additional discussion. #NAME? I've started a list for our January 28th discussion about future topics so that food program has come up repeatedly, and so I'm starting the list with that one, we can certainly be adding to that on the 28th. someone else had a question and there were multiple people talking and I squashed the question, so, I wanna make sure we've answered, go ahead. [Julie] Just thank you very much for your work, you did a great job, I appreciate the emphasis on not getting rid of the family childcare that we are something different, but I had a couple of questions in the beginning when on page 18, where it says the largest contributing factor to this decrease is a shortage of licensed childcare providers entering the field, as the rate of providers exiting licensure has remained steady, where did that information come from? Because as I've watched over the last 10 to 12 years, we've gone from losing maybe 100 providers a year to losing five to 700 a year, so that has not remained steady, so I'm just questioning where that came from and then, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to mean that picky, this is just from my feelings, but the statement on here at line 40, where it says, you know, there can be economic challenges of the traditional model. There's gonna be economic challenges to any business that you start up whether it be a gas station, a daycare, whatever it is and to me, this kind of, I guess, a lack of better words it makes you like, oh, they just can't do it, to me, I don't think that really needs to be stated because anytime you start up any kind of business no matter what it is, there are always going to be economic challenges, that's just my comments. [Regina] Thank you, Oh, well I was just gonna explain where the data point came from. Should I do, if yeah, please. So, Julie asked about that statement so it is based upon, and I can send the link out to folks again, I'm pretty sure we shared this with the group back around August or September, we had done a trend analysis of licenses opened every year, the number, and then the licenses closed every year. And what we saw in that and again, I'm pretty certain, we shared it with the task force when we issued it, is that yes there has actually been a year after year net decrease, which is clearly what you're talking about Julie, a net decrease in providers since 2003, okay? Since 2003, there has never been a year when the openings outnumbered the closing. However, what we looked at was what are the number and therefore the percentage, the rate of licenses that close every year. And what is the rate of licenses that are opening are, you know, we know that openings are not close or exceeding the closings but what we saw and we can resend the link to the fact sheet, totally happy to make sure we do that, is that the percentage of providers closing their license every year is pretty consistent year after year. And I believe it's about 12%, what we saw a decrease over time since 2003 is that the percentage of the providers that are coming in, right? What's the new number is getting smaller and smaller. So, yes as everybody here has talked about and in legislative hearings, maintaining existing providers is absolutely critical. But what our data suggests is that we are also having just fewer new people coming, and so we're not closing that gap, we're not getting close to a net loss gain and we're certainly not growing where we have a net positive at the end, so, we can resend that but that's trying to look at not just the net loss each year, that's there everybody knows that, we know that but it prompted us to look a little differently at our new people coming. You know, we know that five years, the surveys people talked about five years seems to be a really critical year, but we're actually looking at like, who's actually calming, and are we continuing to draw at the same rate? Meaning everybody that's out there trying to encourage people to enter the field. I certainly do not need to say DHS for the week. So that's what that data is referencing. I would be interested in seeing that, because as I've said, after tracking and over the last 10 or 12 years, the number that it was that we were losing has gone up dramatically, and I also know the number of providers coming or new providers coming in has dropped dramatically, so, I'm just questioning that statement of the rate of providers exiting Weisinger has remained steady, so I would like to see that. [Judy] Right so that information will get shared. [Stephanie] Oh, sorry Judy [Judy] go ahead, Stephanie. [Stephanie] Yep, I just have to call clarification on that line and this is likely to something I may have introduced. So, my apologies, but as Reggie said it should be 2003 and not 2001. [Judy] Got it, thank you. Other questions then reflections on either that introductory part or on the recommendations. #NAME? was a member of group five and just to, from my seat on the bus, working with a lot of three-digit population communities and as Liz emphasized and Ariane both so well in their analysis of this what it can do for communities and entrepreneurs and allowing the community to come around a provider who may want to expand, who's considering shutting down, so this is not only fostering entrepreneurship in the industry, but I think business retention and expansion which is critical, whether you're talking about childcare manufacturing, hospitality or anything above, and it being critical allowing more clarity and tools and ways that anchors like churches and employers can engage, and I just cannot lift up enough what this means for our three digit population, and our small four digit population communities where the community wants to surround a provider with love with real estate with capital, and always have human and financial and to just get some magic done. And this, I think will add value to the conversations that are happening today, all throughout Minnesota #NAME? will echo what Scott has said and I'll say, I mean, we're already working that way as a regional hub trying to figure out how we can do that, it's really, really hard with currently succeeding to wrap around current providers and put them in a different location we do need that... [Judy] Oh we lost you. [Erin] The license or wrap around. I can already identify employers that would be willing to do that. [Judy] All right, any further discussion on five, Hollee? [Hollee] Hi, I guess I echo Julie's sentiments about the introductory paragraph about the shortage of providers because it really has a lot to do with the loss of providers, a lot of existing providers are not encouraging people to open new businesses, family childcare businesses like they used to, I've been watching this very closely since 2008 and it was since 2011 that we started seeing the biggest declining and providers in there. Several reasons for that. I do struggle with the, there can be economic challenges to the traditional model and home ownership being a barrier for potential providers of course, a home can be an apartment, a condo, any number of places. But it just feels, I just remember in 2011 when we were being talked about as women caring for children in our basements, right. And painted, and it just kind of feels like that again, And Duty on number four for the recommendations for legislative action, I am concerned about and I just think it would need to be spelled out in legislation, maybe not in this recommendation about who would be liable, because if you have a provider a provider who is there with the children, like or a director in a childcare center, that person is responsible and you know it affects their license. But if you have multiple people in multiple locations with the so-called special family child care licensed, who is ultimately responsible, is it the primary license holder, is it the one who is in charge of their facility, so that is something that I think would need to be spelled out, again, I have concerns about fraud and a waste of taxpayer funds if Duty or number six recommendation isn't done through those communities or through private philanthropic help, because first of all the state doesn't have money for this and won't for a very long time. And second of all, I just think, why should childcare in one community be paid for by taxpayers and in another community, I think it just creates and by adding so many different changes all at once it's hard to know which one had the greatest impact. So I do appreciate that the emphasis has been added on keeping family childcare, the wording family childcare as those that are in a home, a residential is where it's or the provider lives or and that any alternatives should be labeled as something different, like a small center or whatnot. Recommendation number, what is it? Number three and on the second page, sorry, my numbers are all messed up for DHS, and then again, for company licensing, or for county agencies under two, I just wanna make sure that it wouldn't be called family childcare in those instances, if it's not in some sort of friends pencil facility and on number one, the DHS recommendations I'm curious about who would be involved because it's not really spelled out. It says that can be in a work group. Is the work group only DHS? Is it going to involve people who are interested in these models? It might be worth spelling out that includes you know, DHS, licensors, maybe parents, providers, I think it would just be important to spell that out. So, that's all I have to say about 35. [Judy] Okay, who else am I missing? Now that I can see your faces more or less? Any other questions and comments, Liz. [Liz] Stephanie can go first. [Judy] All right, Stephanie. [Cynthia] Okay, I wanna be clear that all the members of Duty 5 work group did not mean to revert back to any language you were referring to around 2011 and really wanted to lift up family childcare as an incredible asset and necessity to our child care landscape in Minnesota. And so with that point, I could suggest language there could be economic challenges of the traditional model to say, you know, like other businesses, there can be economic challenges to starting and maintaining a family childcare business or something to that effect. I really wanna like respect and hear any concerns about undermining, you know, my childcare providers in this language because that was not at all the intent of the work group, so that's one point. I'm just unpacking a couple of things but I do wanna say, and in recommendations number four and five and a couple members of our work group haven't heard this, So, I'm sorry about that, but I think it's really just more of a point of clarity to, instead of say, operate up to three additional, to say sorry a total of four, so it's really just, it's the same thing but more clear. And the point about I think there would be a clear lineation of who is responsible in these cases because they're very specific, the special family childcare situation where an employer for around an employer who holds a special family childcare license for the benefit of the license holders employees, as a read in the language and then five is a church or religious organization. And so it's my understanding of those structures, there's a pretty clear person who would be responsible as the license holder, it allows essentially for increased capacity within those facilities within the rule and statute is kind of my, the shorthand way of saying it. And in those situations, we also talked a lot about and I think this is in the point in discussion, how we and Liz brought it up to how existing family childcare providers, you know, are often already and could be brought into the fold in these situations to grow their business if that is something that they're interested in or grow their business or kind of build in those special family childcare licenses. So my true main things that I would be recommending then would be that language on line 40, page 18 to say something to the effect of like other small businesses family childcare businesses can be difficult and face economic challenges to start up or maintain something to that effect. And then instead of two, three additional thing up to four, a total of four would be probably the best way, just for clarity not changing, but for clarity. [Judy] Got it, we'll come back to those in a moment. Liz, I think you had your hand up as well. [Liz] I think that, I know that you said that we worked hard but in reality, when I've really dug into this and when we look at the licensing system and how and even as a parent right now, there's like two options for childcare which is in-home, right? And then you have center, okay? The issue is that there isn't anything in between, and the people that are at in-home could expand their business which to me would be important especially because I cannot afford $600,000 which is what would be needed for a center, but when we look at greater Minnesota, they don't have an option, they barely have an option and this recommendation gets them to that option. But I have learned, and I know this might surprise some people is that DHS has had to say, "We can't do this." Well, to me that's silly that when people are coming to DHS asking to expand and asking to help solve the childcare crisis, and DHS of all people has to say no, when they want to say yes, that was surprising to me, and what might surprise a lot of people on the call is that there's many providers that I have spoken to that wants to leave the industry because they cannot grow. So see we're caught kind of in the middle here, because we can't grow our business, and we know what we could probably make more money and be more successful in a different field. You talked about how we're looked upon as or at one point in time, and I still think that this is true is that we are women that take care of children in our basements. I don't like that, I don't like that that's how we're looked upon where your profession and the pandemic highlighted that we are essential employees and the economy will crumble without us, and that is something that, again, this past year has shown us. It's the first time now that I feel as a provider, we've actually received attention, and we need to keep that attention going, and we need to be able to expand. The less opportunity to create business, to expand our business, it threatens childcare even further. And right now this is could possibly become a dying industry, and I would hate to see that happen. [Woman] Judy you are muted. [Judy] That would help if I wasn't slapping my lips without any impact, I'm saying there's a number of hands raised, I had Senator Kiffmeyer, then Cindy, then Julie, Senator? You're muted too. [Mary] Yeah you can, just took me a moment to. As a legislator I look at this huge list and my thought is my gosh, how is this possibly going to work in legislation? You look at this whole report and all of these things that kind of to me, I appreciate the advocacy and the comments and all of that, I just have a concern about the breadth and depth of this and future legislation that it takes to get this done. So, it's concerning, but I'm just enjoying listening to other people's comments, so I'll continue to listen. [Judy] Great thanks, Cindy, you're up next? (audio distorting) All right, we'll come back to you, Julie. [Julie] A couple of questions and I'm sorry just things keep coming up in my head. And when you're talking about one provider then being able to expand three more licenses, what happens when that main provider with that license loses their license? What happens to those other providers, is that something that's kind of been discussed and what would happen? Because if they're the main license holder and say they die, I mean, sorry, worst case scenario here, what happens to everybody else that was underneath that license? That's kind of concerned if that's been discussed, and then I was curious when, you know, you're talking about these models and they've been done in other states, do we know how these states are doing as far as childcare crisis, are they in a childcare crisis? Is their crisis as bad as ours is? Have these different models helped with that? Anyway, before we go diving into it, spending all this money are these models actually working in those other states to help with the childcare crisis? #NAME? in economic development we actually toured some of those small group childcare centers in North Dakota. And they were developed in a specific need when they had the oil boom in North Dakota, they had no childcare, they needed to quickly find a way to create childcare in these very rural small communities. And I'll say that's kind of what spurred this idea within me is that we need kind of this middle ground, I guess. So when this task force started having this conversation surrounding this recommendation that's immediately what I thought too because they were running well, they were, I mean childcare aware and the North Dakota version of DHS had a lot of oversights of those programs. So, they were very regulated, but it was another option and they needed to figure that out very quickly. [Julie] Here's a question, do we or can we get a hold of the information that how they did this in legislation? I mean, I know it's different state to state, but would that be something that could be a possibility to do help out here is to take some of that language because obviously they had some pretty quick authority to make changes that RDHS does not have, good thing, bad thing I don't really know but that would be very interesting to see if we could see what the verbiage is in their rule in stature, things possible for them. [Stephanie] And I know a number of people have their hands up, so, I'll try to be quick but I wouldn't say my standing of North Dakota they have prescribed license requirements in statute. So, I don't know that their licensing oversight agency actually has flexibility that you're referencing but I don't know specifically what that would be but they have, and we did link to their statute, I believe if not report in the report itself in the other document we provided when we provided an overview of Duty 5 previously. But I would also just say that this recommendation doesn't create a different license type, it creates a new license type but it doesn't create really a new model these recommendations don't. It renamed the models, existing models in many ways. And then that the recommendation would be to have that taskforce look at those other states, look at kind of what you're talking about, 'cause we could've spent the entire time of this task force I think, thinking about what those alternative models could be. And so, that is part of our recommendation, and what those changes we outline and we recommend, and that would be set to changes would sort of lay the groundwork for some of those other opportunities as how I look at it. It doesn't totally change the structure of special family childcare or those options in besides four and five where they could have multiple license holders. Both significant change in my mind, Duty number 5, correct me if I'm off there. [Lauryn] And Stephanie and Reggie can chime in but the recommendations on four and five with the specifics that was what DHS has already been working through and was able to easily say, you know, we would have said, yes, had we done this under these scenarios versus the debate that is to come as to what more specific or prescribed business models. One of the things we wanted to do was open up to innovation and part of the work group is to see, all right, if there's did folks know that there's a middle ground and then it's the, you know, the wild west so to speak, let's talk about what these liabilities, these capacities, these you know financing or whatever it's going to take, we didn't want to do that right now and necessarily prescribed things that constrain innovation that would happen, but open the conversation to say, hey folks, let's start looking in these areas where you can now look to expand, there's an openness to consider, you know, the middle ground here, but Reggie had pointed out to those two recommendations as things that were specific that could be done now in moving this based on what they'd already seen. [Judy] Cindy, I think you've been waiting for your technology to work, so, you're up next? [Cynthia] Is it working now, can you hear me now? So, I will commend this group for their work that they did. And I think the piece is this to me, it's not so much about expansion I respect that Liz but it's also about equity and inclusion. Because we're looking at people in multiple settings within our state, that don't have a home, can't afford a home, don't have a home that can be licensed on a facility and don't have a lot of those kinds of things (audio distorting) And we are losing some of the priority of a family childcare model of primary provider, small group multi-age. Those things are much that model is most easily more easily sustained in many areas, it's the model of quality that, I guess that we most of us all believe is a good space for children, and so, again, to me, this is about equity and inclusion, this is not an or, it's an and, and you know when you talk about legislation it's adding one different definition that still falls under 9502. So, I would like to move this forward into a working group about, I don't know, and I think they spent a lot of an effort on coming to this point, and I respect that and I'd like to just kind of move forward if I can ask for that. [Judy] We did have two other people with their hands up. So Liz first and I'm not seeing names, where did the names go? Yes, you in front of the fireplace with the bricks. [Judy] Well, hello... And thank you, Cindy that was one thing I actually did notice is that the private and public partnerships that would come from this, would allow for the socioeconomic opportunities people to have their own childcare program. This is what stops that, that helps the people that don't have a family, that don't have a home, that want to enter the field, and I cannot tell you that is so incredibly important right now, especially as there are talks of in it and in equity and disparity through our state and nation, this is something that does address that. Because it really isn't fair if you have and I'm not trying to say it isn't fair, but if you have a 24 year old who just hasn't gotten married and hasn't had kids but she wants to be a provider, let her be a provider, right? And let her partner with the community and fill that need that the community has. Again, this really solves a lot of the issues of the childcare crisis that we as a task force we're put on to help solve this. #NAME? that I have my words back, you're up next? [Judy] Yeah, no problem. I just wanted to say that I think that the recommendation really flesh out what the Duty asked them to do in developing alternative possibilities for alternative models, and I really think that that the level of detail is very helpful. Any, if a legislator was to work on the ledge factions that need to happen, there would of course need to be even more things fleshed out to accomplish some of those tasks. But I think having them included in the report will be very helpful to someone who would be working on it, and then in combination with having a work group to relate to talk through and to discuss this in more detail is complimentary as well. So, if the level of detail that's been put forward and I think it would be a good set of recommendations to include in a report. [Judy] Okay, so I would like to draw close to the conversation and ask you, I'm gonna suggest that we add Stephanie's friendly amendments to her own writing, and I will go through them, and then I would like to see if you are willing to say yes to all of the Duty 5 piece, not go piece by piece. So what we have online 40 instead of that language that was not satisfactory about economic challenges, Stephanie suggested and I could have gotten this wrong, Stephanie so correct me if I've miswritten it. Like other small businesses, there can be economic challenges to starting and maintaining a childcare business, that okay? All right, and then the other friendly amendments were on recommendations for legislative action four and five, so, instead of up to three additional, it's up to a total of four, so just a clarifying language piece. With that, a show of hands if you are willing to take all of what Duty group five submitted to you. Raise your hands if you're in favor, Jess help me count. Okay, Jess, what are you coming up with? [Jess] 15 and 16. [Judy] All right, simple math tells me that passes, fortunate. I'm gonna suggest you have been at this for a while, it is 7:43 by my trustee clock, can you be back at 7:50 so we can dive into the rest? Okay, thank you. So as we're waiting for people to come back, I'm just wondering if everyone else is having interesting times with this with WebEx tonight? I'm having some interesting things appearing and disappearing and challenging my already fragile hold on technology. (Judy laughing) Just saying. [Erin] Yes, I've already had to disconnect and connect a couple of times, so you're not alone. [Judy] Yeah, at one point I had names and no faces. Then I had faces no names, then I had both, but they kept moving around, it's been delightful. [Judy] We all get bonus points for our distance processing use during COVID. Okay, so let's pick up, I think we are ready to dive back in, Ann are you? Join us 'cause I'm gonna pick on you next. So, we're on section six and nothing changes there except recommendations 6.9, and that was a recommendation where you are suggesting some alternative language. And when I was entering that alternative, well actually we're suggesting deletes something, possibly replacing it not sure where it goes, and I was suggesting lining it up with section four. So do you wanna talk us through this? [Ann] And Cindy if you wanna help me too this was one we agreed we'd step out and try to work with and bring back. That was the only recommendation our group had around counties, and it was the one that I mentioned a little earlier in the call, I said it originally had read educate county officials as to their responsibility and role in childcare as economic development, and it went broader than just parent aware was one issue that got brought up, I think other people said well, who would do it? And it would cost money and so when Cindi and I sat down and talked about it again, it really was kind of a slightly one-off from maybe the rest of the recommendations. And what we realized and what we were recommending is again, not losing the thread of the idea that there are other players that need to be helpful in spreading the word about the importance of childcare and in this case, economic development practice of childcare but it really felt like it didn't fit necessarily either just in apparent aware, or certainly not, you know? It could be somewhere else in the report, if we wanted to retain that general idea but we can live with taking it out, I guess. Am I putting that fairly enough, Cindi? [Cynthia] Yeah, you know this is something I've frequently been a podium about, we started in 2:15 in Ramsey County about economic development and I can say Ramsey County has started a subgroup for childcare. And that subgroup for childcare is including providers but it's a lot of other folks, but it has about, I can make. So that's the kind of thing that I would love to see broader in this side of the scope, and I plan to me can actually ensure that it happens. So, I would say remove or in that as with that other encourage that was brought up earlier if it could be put into that kind of a list that would be I think the only appropriate place. Okay, so this is Judy and I have a thought and of course I am the least informed person in the group. So it's a highly suspect thought, but I wanted to pose a possible combination which would be your new language county of government officials should understand and promote the critical role of childcare and economic development efforts, and the language in 4.9 and encouraged tax preparers, business advisors, financial advisors, commercial lenders, insurers and others who surf childcare providers to better understand and serve the industry. It's kind of, it's a local connection business development, and I think the placement is actually in section four. Again, least informed person, I'm seeing a connection and it moves over, I could be totally wrong and you can push back on me and say, take them both out, what are your thoughts? [Ann] Well I think that's the one we just discussed a bit ago and I guess I'd be curious to hear what group four thinks, I think I heard them they're committing maybe it came out of theirs as well. So, I'm forgetting where we landed though, that feels like hours ago. [Judy] Yeah we didn't land, we said, we'd come back to it when we got to this one that's why. Yeah, so, I held my promise in 4.9 made it when we talked about 6.9, so there, but I don't know what to do with them. So, that's the question. (indistinct chattering) [Ami] I'm not in that group, but I kinda think the question is more, where does it fall under? So, I think that that's really always the question is, does it fall under a specific county DHS somewhere else? So, I think that's the question I have, I think we're all in agreement that we should do the things but who do they fall under aware, I think both of them fit better under four, but again, I think then it becomes other sort of separate category, and then I start to question, well, what if there were other suggestions for other work groups that might've fit in there? And then we sort of opened that up to other sorts of things that I don't know, that I want to do is just my 2 cents. Well, my audio is working here. [Judy] Right, is a resolution on this, since we have two items that don't really fit within the exact scope of what we did but they're great ideas. Do they go on the December or January 28th topics to be pursued in the future lift, is that where these two go? - Judy, this is Scott and I don't sense. I mean, represented walls is what makes a very important point that do others have aspirational goals that have been stifled because they didn't think that has a place for him, and I fully get that, I don't see resistance to the two that are identified and I guess on whether we discuss it again or not out of bounds to have something that is aspirational and not assigned to one of the buckets of DHS legislators, counties, or providers, if that is out of bounds, are we allowed to have a closing statement or something where these aren't forgotten? I think that's the ultimate thing in my mind is, this process flushed out to and are possibly more things we think are critical to the mission of why we were formed. And I know one argument could be, if it's not assigned to somebody, it could be forgotten about I get that, but it was how Lauryn framed out the possible solution about 49, it's just to create that awareness that these people in the ecosystem matter, just like the 69 hearing. If we can't have a natural live away section, probably not worth any more time on it, but can we? [Lauryn] Go back to the beginning of your introduction to see if there's like a binder you could put in to extend the ecosystem concept just as a broad clinical, but it kind of just launched into the report. #NAME? you're gonna do this for one, then you do it for all, you can't just say, well, these two are gonna be in. To be fair, if you're going to have other ideas we thought of, other ideas kind of an other thing if you do that, it has to be open to everybody to insert their aspirational ideas as well. You can't be just one or two people who are groups who get to do that, it should be open then. #NAME? would be my concern is that if we're gonna do this which I'm okay with doing, but then I don't want every other Duty group to come back and say, Oh wait, but I want it to do this, and I want to do this, and I wanted to do this, that's not the point of this. These things were already in here, and we're just trying to locate them to a different place, not open this up to everybody else wanting to have their ideas brought back. [Ami] Judy, I wonder if maybe something like this could go in the intro section, I mean, if I don't if it would fit in there at all, but if we can't figure out a place to put it, I don't know if that's, that's the idea section. I don't really know what makes most sense. [Judy] I hear ya, intro section for Duty 4, or intro section for the overall conversation. I mean to some degree it is the economic development aspects of it so it does resonate with Duty 4. All right so, will you trust me to draft something or will you assign someone to draft something that will take 6.9 and 4.9 and work them in as part of the introductory paragraph and Duty 4 or maybe we should assign that to the Duty 4 work group. [Scott] Judy, if it's not on the bounds in the ice of the co-chairs I'd be happy to work with you, and obviously with feedback from the Duty 14, because both of these are, you know, just for a topic they're both about the ecosystem and what this process has flushed out is that childcare economic development and the impact of the people that support that ecosystem are critical, and if we can get that into one or two sentences and not let it be forgotten, I'd be happy to work with you on that and see if it's not out of bounce to the rest of the group. [Judy] All right, you all okay with that? [Mary] Again, the concern that I have Judy is fair treatment for everybody. So let's be sure that if we're opening this up then let's consider that everybody, if they have an other idea that can be as well. [Ann] What Lanay said though Senator is what we're saying. These were duties that were recommended, it's just that when the discussion was had, it didn't seem to fit here. So it was a recommendation that came from the parent aware group, just this 4.9 is a recommendation that came from four. They've been there since the beginning, we're just starting to feel maybe their right place is all. [Judy] Just as an addition, it's a placement issue. All right, all right, any objections for our editing? Okay, with your permission I'm gonna move on to Duty 7. So Duty 7, the rewrites were for recommendations 7.17. [Hollee] Sorry, I thought in 6.7 that as appropriate comment, I thought that was we discussed that and I thought we said that it was fine to leave it out last meeting. But because I mean, it's really subjective and it doesn't, I mean, saying whether or not it's appropriate 'cause you put incorporate relevant, the whole point was to put incorporate relevant ones and since that's already in there, I thought we had said that we can remove as appropriate because it doesn't really do anything. [Judy] I will go back to the transcript and get the exact language that the group agreed on, thank you for that. Okay, let's move on to seven, recommendations and Jess you're gonna need to show these so we're on recommendations on the training advisory committee, supervision training, and the number of hours approved in develop. And then there was a clarification on the adult caregiver changes, given some conversations with the feds. So group seven, you wanna talk us through? [Ami] Yeah, I've been having issues with my audio. So, if I cut out at some point just wave your arms frantically at me. 'Cause I've been losing both my speakers on my mic. So, I can't always hear what people are trying to tell me things. Essentially what we did, I can talk about 7.1 and 7.2 because our work group took a second look at these. With the training advisory committee, we kind of smashed together the language from DHS, we liked their language around sort of the details of where sort of fitting in those details and having that be in sort of the legislative language instead of us trying to figure out all of these extra things that we didn't necessarily wanna spend time on. We did make sure that that language about a majority of licensed family childcare providers on the training advisory committee, we still feel like those are the folks who are most impacted by these training requirements and so we wanna make sure that a majority are, both providers but we also included DHS' language about the other remaining members including these folks have expertise in things like child development, instructional design and or training delivery. 'Cause we felt like there also sort of a piece of the puzzle that we wanna have in this conversation. So, those were the main changes to the training advisory committee language, and then 7.2, we sort of took the feedback we heard from other members of the task force as well as DHS conversations with DHS. And we just came down with language that's pretty blur. (indistinct) [Judy] We were hoping she'll be back soon. [Hollee] This is a minor thing but we had talked about in 7.1, it was supposed to say create a family childcare training advisory committee just for clarification I know it was discussed and never even seemed okay with it. So we talked about it in our work group too. So no one had any opposition to it then I just wanna make sure that was included. While representative Wazlawik is in limbo land 7.3, can I just ask about that just for the sake of time, I would like to see... #NAME? #NAME? [Ami] All great, I'll just try and go quickly so that if it happens again we'll be through. 7.2 essentially there were concerns expressed about the original language so we decided to just leave it broad, and our ideas were to expand those knowledge areas and the trainings, and then there was another option presented by DHS about some coaching and mentoring. So we wanna leave that broad so we know as a concern we know that providers have expressed it as a concern that they want more options, we wanna leave it open so we can figure out what exactly those options are working within requirements for federal requirements and all those sorts of things that we wanna make sure we're hitting. So that's why we sort of backed off the specifics and got a little more broad with that language for 7.2. [Judy] Great, and while you were fixing your technical difficulties, Hollee was suggesting that on 7.1 to insert it's create a family childcare training advisory committee if that's consistent with where the work group was, so. [Ami] Yep, I think that works. [Judy] All right. And then 7.3 we've got some federal requirement issues there in terms of moving forward on that. Somebody from DHS wanna talk about the feds? [Cynthia] Sure, hi Judy, can you hear me? [Judy] Yes, I can, hi Cindy? [Cynthia] Yes, so I have reached out to our regional Office of Childcare and I should just take a moment to just talk about the kind of the different offices that at the federal level, so our name contact, our direct contact is the regional office, offices childcare and then there's also a central office which is the larger system that that Office of Childcare reports to and so in my preliminary conversations with the Office of Childcare and asking for additional guidance and clarification about the specific 7.3 language here, they have told me that it would be an issue, we would not be in compliance if we were to go this route. And so it would be the preliminary responses that it will be an issue for us. However, the office that the regional office is confirming that with the central office, and so, I have not received the final clarification and guidance just yet, but the preliminary so far they have confirmed a preliminary. I can't say that word, that it would be a conflict. So, I just wanna make sure to share that update here. All right, okay, and then 7.4 was some revised language to clarify, we have that going back and forth about how much could be counted in develop, Cindy. [Judy] I can't hear you. [Cynthia] Oh, okay. 7.4, right sorry, I have three screens trying to manage three screens here. [Cindy] Okay. [Cynthia] Which Cindy, are you talking to? [Judy] So Cindy Cunningham had her hand up and someone from DHS needs to talk about 7.4. So, Cindy Cunningham let's get your question first and then we'll come back, yes. [Cynthia] Clarification first, I like to listen to DHS (audio distorting) Right. (audio distorting) - Are you talking about on 7.4? [Cynthia] Yes. [Regina] So, I think that 7.4 was kind of some technical tweaks to capture a few points. We actually went and we all were trying to make sure so people listened to the transcript and confirmed with Jake. So it really, I could try to get one of my staff to tell me the exact changes that were made, but it was very minor trying to just clarify for that topic one time in that annual training year. So it was pretty minor but there was a need to tweak something to clarify it. So this was one of those where the concept was agreed to in the last meeting, but the language was clunky and needed be streamlined. [Cynthia] Okay, can you hear me? It was a disdain or detainer and do not agree with this because as a trainer I run a business, I give trainings. This becomes an equitable playing field for people who choose... (audio distorting) For grants and other benefits for a provider. So make Penn we did some discussion on it as an organization, and four of us have not quite, we have nine, I don't know four out of the nine or 10 of us are trainers. And our issue with this I'm just gonna go on record and say, is that as an educator don't learn necessarily the full context of a topic, I take by teaching a class. I understand six hours, but there's a lot of providers that have difficulty trying to get the 16 hours, and that's always the complaint and always the presentation, if we're going to do the six hours and the point I'm gonna push for is the only claim training hours for the first time they deliver a content specific training, I would like to change to one KCF category because a provider trainer could have multiple trainings under one KCF, and then the other piece would be that the provider trainer would still be required to meet and take classes to meet their licensing, I should not be able to train to meet my licensing training hours. And then I guess our last one is who the heck's gonna monitor this? #NAME? and it would be the licensing workers who would be monitoring, because when you guys do a training I think it does show up on your develop record. I believe that it does, so it would be... (audio distorting) [Cynthia] And we have people who train online multiple times and multiple hours and they understand this is an hour limit, and I guess my only point that if we're gonna have this, I really want to include that it needs to be one training per KCF. Not multiple trainings under one KCF that counts, and that the provider trainers still required to take a class for their licensing, otherwise that is a huge inequitable privileged position for those of us who choose I am a trainer for those of us that choose to train. You know, some people train once a year, some people train I don't know, Hollee, how many times do you train in a year? 20, that's not an equitable playing field. We're already getting paid and we choose to do this. [Lanay] I completely agree with Cindy, I think she is on the right track with this, and I'm not sure how we're going to track that, I think she's right, it's gonna show up on their training record as a trainer. I was a trainer too, it's a different location. I would go so far as to say they only need to get two hours, not six hours, if they're only required to have 16 hours and they get to count six hours of that, the remaining 10 hours do all of their other mandated so to speak trainings like steward, HTC, PRN, first aid and not venture into any other sort of learning to better themselves, or their business or the children they're caring for. So I have major issues with this one. [Judy] All right, any other comments on 7.4? - This is Julie, I'm not a trainer, I have no desire to be a trainer, too much work to be a trainer, don't wanna write my own trainings. But I guess I'm a little bit disappointed, I mean, I understand that we don't want trainers to get all of these hours and never have to do any training. But when you say that they're not gonna take any other classes, they're not gonna improve themselves, these trainers go above and beyond what a regular provider does because not only taking their regular trainings they also have to take trainings to be a trainer and they have to take trains in order to train a training, so they're already going on. So, I'm a little bit, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong, any of the trainers off there, don't you have to take training to be a trainer? Don't you have to take training to gain a training? I mean, and that's all I have to say, having just a little bit confused by all of this. [Judy] Okay, so you had your hand up and then Cindy. - This is Lanay and you're right, Julie. They do have, you know, you have to take training to be a trainer, and you have to keep up with trainings in order to keep your training status but then being able to count those hours towards your 16 hours, shouldn't even be an issue, because you should already have way more than 16 hours. [Cynthia] So, you know, I guess to me is I'm a provider and I'm a trainer, yes, there's interjection or intertwining it is too late. Intertwining on my learning and my application and on how things work. They're not bind together though. And as a trainer do not have, yes, I take to TC, I understand what you're saying, Julie, I'm in one right now and yes I have to do that but I was trained to be an active, afraid years ago. It was a two hour training and then I just continued to train the training. And I continue to have the potential for earning money from that, there are providers who don't do that and don't choose to do it, and that's the point though, it creates a really unequal and I think a privileged playing field that as other providers, 16 hours and the value of our training for our license needs to stand separate. And apart from any business endeavor I might do as a trainer, I don't need any other benefit. [Judy] Holley? [Hollee] Okay, well, I have several things to say. The first is that the whole point of this and this has been brought up for several years and the legislature had a bill for this that just didn't make it into the omnibus bill, but had passed through all the respective committees needed to pass it, so there wasn't any opposition before to that through the numerous public hearings, oh my gosh! #NAME? [Judy] Okay, we lost Hollee. [Julie] Sorry to laugh, but she looks... [Judy] She's having a reaction to technology that several of us are having tonight. [Mary] So, Judy, I'll bring this up if you let me have a moment here. [Judy] Sure. [Mary] I'll speak to this. You know, we're on a task force or when we're in the legislature, we don't just speak for ourselves, we speak for a lot of people. And in this particular case, it is not unusual to have a situation where somebody who provides a training and a content area also has, hey, they not only took the training they did the training. And so, why should they go to somebody else's training where they just did it and presented it. It just kind of a common sense thing, I really don't know why this is being made more difficult. This is not about anything else other than that, and I think it should be a reasonable number. I'm not saying whether six is the right number or eight or four, but it is reasonable. And when I as a legislator look at these things, I think is this reasonable, is there some principle here that I feel this does address? And I don't see any problem with this or we can discuss the number, maybe there are other things to consider about the general principle presenting the training and having a count or do you as having received the training seems to me very reasonable. [Judy] And Hollee you're back. [Hollee] Sorry, my computer kicked me off. So yeah, I don't know what Senator Kiffmeyer just said, but this has been an issue for providers for many years. One of the issues is that with scripted trainings it doesn't matter which trainer you take it from, some of these DHS curriculum trainings where trainers are told that we have to stick to the script. So, whether you take stewards or abusive head trauma through me or through Cindy or someone else. you technically are getting the same exact content you know, as required by DHS. And so, for a provider to have to keep taking that even though they've presented it multiple times seems ridiculous, it gives them the freedom and the time to take other trainings in areas where they know they are challenged and need to improve. I take far more hours than what is required for licensing each year. The other issue is that we are trying to get more trainers across the state that is an ongoing issue, I'm sure. And you can speak to that in Bremer, Minnesota that it is very hard associations when they contact me to present across the state, they see how difficult it is for them to find trainers in the area, and that's just the nature of, you know you could have a large population in an area, statistically you're probably not gonna have a large percentage of trainers. And so in the Metro it's easier and so by making it easier for trainers and maybe giving more incentive for good trainers especially providers to train is something that's worthwhile. And again, having someone who is a trainer who is also a family childcare provider past or current, makes a huge difference. That is something that family childcare providers and even different sayings truly appreciate, and in multiple evaluations in every training that is a comment that providers make is that things it's nice to know that you understand where we're coming from, only six hours. It is such a small amount, and the whole point was started to provide those trainers you have to keep taking our PT trainings. Back before in 2014, 15, I was able to send my license or copies before DHS when we had asked if this would count and they were checking on it. I checked my license and it was very easy for her to see, I just printed out the trainings I presented and she could see what area they fell into. And unfortunately we haven't been able to do that again. There's only a few trainings where the content is very specific and it's not different for each trainer, this would make a huge difference for providers to give them good access to more trainers to increase that trainer pool, and to help trainers who it's takes a lot of time to be a trainer, it's not like I just present for two hours and I'm done, it's insane how much time, I mean, I'm just, I take it to the 10th degree and I take a lot of time to research and put together a training and to submit it for approval. And so, I'm putting in far more hours than I will ever present on this training. And so, it would make a big difference, and this is not a self-serving thing like I said, I have plenty of hours but I think this would make a big difference for providers, and it'd be very disappointing if this didn't pass. All right, do we have any new comments on 7.4 that we haven't heard presented so far? Cindy, do you have something new? Well, I guess the comment that was made about representing multiple, I will say again, (audio distorting) partners in the education field, you don't get education credit for your education in your classroom, you still have to take classes. If this is going to go to the point that it is then I think it needs to be clarified that the providers needs to take required license trainings. Otherwise we are creating a huge, all the huge disparity we choose to do trainers. And yes, I'm for pushing and I pull in, I've recruited three trainers in the last whatever time, I don't know, pre COVID or post COVID. We need to do that, but the bottom line is all of the hours that I spend as a trainer are my business decision to be a trainer, and it does not my childcare. So if we can at least add that the training hours need not be applied to the licensing requirements, I think that would be a critical step on this case. [Ann] Cindy do you mean requirements clinic for or abusive head trauma or what do you mean by because the 16 hours are? [Cynthia] Yeah, yeah, so, you know, so it's in HT. Yes, under a test, but the reality is learning by teaching and learning by learning. And it is important to continue to learn as a learner. So, say KCF1, KCF3 after supervision of those, I may teach, I may train, I still need to learn with them. And so, I am still need to take the active supervision, sorry, it's too late. The active supervision that KCF1 and 3s. We still need to as providers actually take those classes. [Judy] All right, any other new comments on some 7.4? [Hollee] I mean, that's fine if those hours can't count towards grants and whatnot, the whole point of it though, was for it to count for life towards licensing requirements, at least some of them. [Judy] Okay. [Cynthia] I don't think that's possible... I don't think it's possible to separate that. There is not a benign non-impact in the long-term on training hours, to treat them like that I think is discrediting. [Judy] Okay. I think we've covered our ground and are starting to loop again. So, I wanna pull you back to 7.1, we're just gonna walk through these and say, accept or not and move on. So, 7.1 create a family childcare training advisory committee with the revised and firmed up language, all those in favor raise your hand. Okay, Jess, what are you coming up with? [Jess] 16. [Judy] We match, I'm so excited, it's not my specialty. So, that is the majority, so 7.1 goes is accepted Hollee, what's up? [Hollee] Well, I thought we were talking about 7.4 before and it's fine for 7.1, but I didn't know, like 7.2 and 7.3 we didn't discuss, I wanna make sure we... [Judy] Right, I was going back to the beginning of the list and then I was not clear that I also have not had enough coffee to get me through this night. So 7.2, the straightforward language expand active supervision training options per providers, all in favor of that recommendation as it is, raise your hands. [Hollee] No, no, no, I'm sorry, my question was that we didn't get time to discuss that, I'm sorry. That was not something that I agreed on in the work group, and I wanna make that clear because I it's very much opposed to the vague language. Because it doesn't do anything to help providers. The whole point was that providers should be able to take it every three years after their first five years. And the information that was presented in the last taskforce meeting, seems to conflict with the statistics that were shared with us from county licensors about supervision violations and substantiated violations. It was a very, very low percentage and so I just wanted to address that the recommendation doesn't really do anything right now, it doesn't say anything in CF, I think it's seven, I believe would count. I mean, that's what we talked about, but to leave it vague it doesn't do anything to help providers, how does that expand it? How does it address the issue of the providers are taking a redundant training that obviously hasn't done anything to reduce the number of supervision complaints and substantiated complaints? Not that there are that many overall but I just ask that that be clarified that it included anything in KCF seven or that we revert back to the previous language. Could someone from group seven wanna speak to that? #NAME? [Judy] Yes. [Ami] Yeah, so I think to the point was, we had done some follow-up with DHS asking questions around whether listing specific KCF that sort of language would be a problem with meeting federal requirements and other pieces that we had questions on. That's why we didn't put that specifically in that language because the response that I got was that there wasn't clarity around that and so the idea being, we would put a little bit more broad language in there, and then we would go back and talk further with DHS and figure out making sure that we're in compliance with whatever sort of things we allow to count under that extra training opportunities, and then there were some other suggestions that DHS had as well about coaching and mentoring. So we wanted to make sure that when we found out more about what would or wouldn't work that we left it open for us to be able to say, well, now we know that we can do this and we can do this as opposed to saying, let's put this in there, and then we actually can't do it, because it doesn't meet federal requirements or whatever else is in there. So that was the purpose behind that broader language so that we can come back and make sure that whatever suggestions we make actually fit in with all the other sort of rules and regulations we have around training. [Judy] Okay, Hollee have have you ended up? [Hollee] Yeah federal requirements don't establish how frequently a supervision training needs to be taken or even the link that training. It's that plain and simple and the 400 and something plus page documents and the many documents we've read over the years. It shows that there is no requirement specifically. So, what language we had before would have met the federal requirements. It's just a matter of why there's opposition to that change. [Judy] Great, any other comments on 7.2? - This is Julie, I'll make it quick I agree with them and I wanna let you know, but I actually had a provider call me today who is tracking the act of supervision on develop, and was not allowed to take any of the classes because it said she had previously taken them before. So, now apparently she's out of active supervision classes to take, this is something that really needs to be addressed, and it's really important that we get it right because it's a real problem. And I agree, I think it's important we get it right, I guess that's what I think I heard representative Wazlawik saying, we don't wanna box ourselves, and what I saw this as a compromise, and I was also on this group, is at least with this language we can still pursue what that would look like, and it does at least start to get at the redundancy issue 'cause there's two issues here, there's the question of redundancy and the feeling that there aren't enough options that we need to broaden the options that count for practice supervision, and then there was this other issue about letting longtime providers who didn't have any serious allegations on their license perhaps opt out of it every so often. I think that piece is where we were really running into some opposition and some discrepancies about who got what data, I don't know. But it seems to me this is at least starting down the path of trying to deal with the question of, can we broaden what counts, knowing that what the feds do say is you have to take this. But defining it more broadly and offering more options. And if this gets us started down that path, I think it's a good compromise. [Judy] All right, anything new on this one? Do you think we've heard some of the concerns? So, I'm back to, I'm asking all in favor of the language as it stands for 7.2 raise your hands. And Jess help me count again. [Judy] All right, thank you, Jess, what do you got? [Jess] 15, 16. - I got 16, all right. So next is the 7.3 and the recommendation should delete since that does not look like it will fly with the feds. Any objection to acknowledging the feds will not allow? [Judy] Yes, I would like to know where the develop a block grant, what part of the states that we can't do that because I've actually had conversations with the office of childcare out of Chicago, about definition, about attorney and different things like that, and they've left enough open so that states are able to do things that they need to do, and that's how we were able to get the emergency replacements. This falls under that same category, we're simply making it a helper and clarifying that an adult can be along with the child. So this would fall under what is allowed by the block grant if it says otherwise I would like to see where it says otherwise. [Judy] Hollee, you had your hand up. [Hollee] Yes, again, I guess I echo what Julie said. I would like to see the emails from the fence supposedly saying that this wouldn't work, because I have the document from DHS that I've cited several times doing an excerpt from 45 CFR 98.2, in which DHS says that the definition excludes those who are always supervised by a family childcare provider childcare center staff person, because then the individual would not be providing services on it person to person basis as such Minnesota does not need to extend these training requirements to teenage helpers who sometimes work for family childcare providers, who volunteers for licensed childcare centers are always supervised, and there's nothing in the federal requirements about the age of the person assisting, but again, this says that it would be okay, it doesn't say that it can't be an adult or it has to be a teenager, and so I'm curious why they're saying that the federal requirements wouldn't allow this. [Cindi] Julie, I can respond if you can hear me. [Judy] Yes, speak up though. [Cyndi] Yeah, not sure why, I'm on the fullness here. So in my interactions with the Office of Childcare our liaison is specifically stating that the conflict from her reading, the helper language, that it conflicts under the caregiver definition. So that is the health and safety training requirements under 45 CRS 98.44, calls out the caregiver teachers and directors and fill the helper falls under the caregiver language. [Julie] Aren't we excluding liner helpers from training, so, if it excludes helpers, it doesn't say only excludes minor helpers. So, again, there was some confusion for why it's okay for somebody under 18, but not somebody over 18. The block grant doesn't specify an age. - So, this is Judy, I don't know that we're gonna get a resolution on what Chicago slash Washington will allow on this, beyond the preliminary answer that DHS has gotten so far, and further word from them, further digging. [Mary] Judy I just wanna comment here. When you have a written document that specifically states helpers without recommendation to an age or reference to an age that is more strong for me because it's in writing and it's clearly stated. Verbal comments and conversations do not carry the same weight, what matters to me most is the actual writing of this, and I think that is what we should go by. [Judy] All right, then help me formulate what we do next with this. We have the preliminary response from Chicago that says this won't fly, we have an interest in pursuing it with some members. I understand that there are documents, yes, I'm just saying. #NAME? suggest that maybe we leave a placeholder to say this will continue to be looked at? I mean, I think I've heard you represented wise. Look, can you Senator Kiffmeyer talk about the fact that you know, that was sort of trying to come up, meet in the middle of some of this, and it feels like this is an ever evolving issue and maybe there's a nod toward or a place holder today or until we can get definitive answers from the feds. I was trying to think of a way to keep the conversation going, but we obviously don't have all the data, we need to be able to make a decision. [Mary] Well, personally I would like to see those emails, if you could send them out to at least co-chairs but to the members of the task force, let us have a look at, or just like were able to see the document that is directly here from them, I would like to know what they are saying so that we have something in writing to deal with. [Judy] As a suggestion for the language in the report which I am hell bent we will get nailed down yet tonight. I'm going to suggest that 7.3 might begin with pending further clarification from the feds a nicer way of saying that. Consider changing the title of... So that's a keeps the conversation alive while that clarification is occurring. I'm not seeing any head nods or anything for that. So, hmm, nevermind, Cindi? I can't hear you. [Mary] Cindy's mic... [Cynthia] Okay, hi, now I'm here. There's frequently a pushback and argument about what the fed says this dress. So the state's interpretation on whatever. As a provider I have an issue with the change of this title, when we go from adult helper. (audio distorting) And that is going to create some really strong confusion, I think within providers I'm getting exhausted and when I hear from providers is what's been referred to before about the constant frequent changes, this would fall under the constant frequent changes and one more change, so forget the fence, I think there's a problem just within the discussion of the label. [Judy] Okay, any new thoughts on this, Hollee I'm seeing your hand up. [Hollee] Thank you, one thing is that providers that changed that just got added to this adult caregiver category just went to in fact on September 30th, 2020, and it's not even available to receive for them to receive a violation of it until September 30th, 2021. So, it's very new, and second of all, I move that we keep the existing language and allow public hearings through the legislature if a bill were to be taken with this. The legislators aren't gonna pass something that's gonna conflict with federal requirements. And so that public hearings instead of just sitting in a committee, I mean, I have the documents, this is from DHS that was shared with us. So, I'm signing and so a lot of public discussions of this, I mean, any one of these recommendations from the task force, we'd have to come back to check compliance of federal requirements. So why would this be no different? [Judy] Okay and Julia, think you were next. [Julie] Sorry, collecting my thoughts back When we have changes that negatively affect providers, there's a problem with equity, these are changes that positively affect providers. They don't scoff at this, they're not like, Oh my God, I'm never changed, it's gonna help me. I'm sorry, but that is a completely ridiculous statement. We are not changing the definition of a caregiver, everybody knows who a caregiver is, we are changing the age limit on the definition of helper, we're removing the age limit of it being a teenager somebody our age. Nothing else in that definition changing, nothing else in the training, nothing else that they have to do. We're simply removing an age limit that was put onto a helper that does not need to be there. It is a very positive task, and why don't you ask Kelly Martini about the provider that got a correction order for her husband doing dishes for her because the provider so quickly told her life are about it. And she said, "Well, your husband doesn't have any training, here's your correction order" [Judy] Any other comments on this one? All right, so, go ahead. Who was trying to chime in I'm sorry, we're not getting great audio today. Sorry, that may be a kid in the background. Nevermind, I'm just picking up lots of good noise tonight. All right, so this one seems to be or not to be category, to include it as it was understanding that there may be some negative action where or resistance from the feds or limitations from the feds or to take it out and discuss it further at some other time. So, I care not which one we vote on first. Flip a coin, so let me start with those of you who think it should remain in the report as is understanding that ultimately, the feds may not allow it. If you agree, it should be in, please raise your hands. And again, Jess please help me count. One, two... How many are you getting Jess? [Jessica] Three. [Judy] Okay, so how many of you think it should be out as a result, raise your hands? I understand that some of you are on the fence, I can see it on your faces. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. They're jumping around on my screen, what do you have Jess? [Jessica] Six. [Judy] While you are really torn on this you have three against three to keep it in and six to take it out, and everyone else right on the fence. [Hollee] Would it help if I sent the document from DHS with the federal requirements, that I've cited before would that help at all? [Ann] Well, it sounds like new interpretation given to partial to Cindi, so I guess we need to see that as well. [Julie] Well, what are the objections of other providers, Liz you voted no, what is your objection to a helper being over the age of 18? [Liz] For helpers being over the age of 18. (crackling) When you become a certain age, that wasn't on my end. [Judy] No, no. [Liz] There's a certain age where you get more into the legality issue of being an adult versus an adolescent. [Julie] But what difference does that make this person as they has to supervise by the provider 100%? You know my daughter is 18 year old, she doesn't help me. Well, what does she wants to come in and read a story for the kids? While I'm down there getting snack ready? She's considered a helper, but now she's 18, now she's not considered a helper. What about the provider who got a correction order because her husband was doing dishes during daycare hours even though he was not providing direct care to the children the provider received a correction order for it. [Liz] So I would have to actually see that correction order. And I know that since they're made public I would have to actually like look that up to actually see the details behind that is that does someone really just peculiar to me. But I think there's, I'm looking at levels of protection, and once you kind hit the age of 18, there's different levels of protection that parents look at different levels of training when you are with children. You look at schools, they're the same way. [Julie] And some volunteers... They can go into the classroom and read a story when the teachers what's the difference? [Liz] They have all that, yes. But when you are doing, you know, when a licensor comes in and may or may not know exactly what the role is, I can see where, okay, I can see that the girdy issue of being versus 18 versus being an adolescent. [Judy] Okay, so, Kelly Martini, you have your hand up and I'm gonna get a comment from you then I have a suggestion to make, go ahead, Kelly. [Kelly] I guess what I don't understand is why the licensors would come in and my daughter that's over 18 is hoping feed a baby when I'm sitting right here, as long as those people are not alone with the kids. I really don't see the point of them having to be taking classes or any type of training if they're not ever alone with the kids. If they're alone, totally different story. Again, like with this provider, they've gotten in trouble because her husband was right there, she was right there, she was never alone with the kids, but licensor assumed was, you know a caregiver and that's not what it was. And there needs to be clarification to licensors, if these people are not alone, not even considered a helper or a caregiver, we're the caregiver, we're the provider, that's my comment. [Judy] All right, so what I'm gonna suggest since we are really not overwhelmingly for or against keeping this in, and a lot of folks are right on the fence and there's a lot of unknowns. I'd like to place a hold on this one and discuss it with the co-chairs when I have my meeting with them, on what might be inappropriate way to proceed with this one. Because I am going to need to ask, this is our last scheduled meeting before supposedly we meet on the 28th and approve a final report, it is 8:55 and we still have some material to get through. And as much as I hate to ask you to stay past nine o'clock, I don't think we have much option. So let's not talk about this one further let's let's roll on from here. Which of course brings us back to 7.4 and the discussion we had about training hours, and whether or not that's the right number of hours, whether or not you agree with the concept. So, I'm gonna cut to the chase because we've already talked through this one to ask how many of you, except with the language of 7.4 as it stands right now raise your hands. One, two, three-ish. Okay, Jess, what do you have? You have three as well. [Jess] Yeah. [Judy] Okay, how many of you would suggest we just don't include it at this point? Raise your hands. What are you getting Jess? Five, six, okay, if we got another six and three. Tough issues, let me ask the third question. Is adjusting the number of hours a fix? I'm seeing some heads nod. If the number of hours is not six, but it's a lower number. [Ann] Judy, I was hearing both the number of hours and possibly the way it gets directed or limited. So there's a small incentive at least but it doesn't abuse, I don't know what words to use. For those who were concerned that it offers too much leeway. Maybe there's a compromise in both hours and where it gets. [Judy] Lauryn, how did you do that? [Kim] Your thumbs up. [Lauryn] I have winter emojis. (indistinct chattering) I don't think that was there before. I don't know why their winter formula. [Judy] Love it, well, that's the breath we needed, I suppose a champagne bottle on top of it, love it. Okay, I would like to ask, because I don't think we can suffer through rewriting this tonight. Ann, can I ask you to work with me tomorrow on rewriting that, okay? [Ann] Yep. [Judy] And we can route via email to folks to get reactions if that's all right? Moving on to section eight. Okay, so in section eight we had our review... [Ami] Judy, can I just jump in for a second? [Judy] Yeah. [Ami] I don't know what you meant by wrote it to people via email we can't discuss, it's not really great for the open meeting law, we discuss things via email as a group. So we can't really do that via email, it would be something that would have to come up at our next meeting. [Ann] Okay, I assumed it would. I thought if you want it although I have to hesitate and say I don't know exactly the part that Cindi and others were raising completely. In terms of narrowing the scope, we would have to get maybe they'll listen to the transcript, got it. [Judy] Ann, thank you for that, I do tend to revert to just my facilitation role in not my open meeting reminders that I need. Okay, so onto Duty 8. So he had the first couple of paragraphs suggest can you pull that up? Basically the introduction to eight was it looks like barely, well, shortened based on this end it's pretty straightforward I think. Here we go, so it's just those lines five through 15 that basically say providers need to know and comply with numerous rules and statutes including, and that there's issues of consistency across the state, and then the focus of Duty work group eight. So I'm assuming you are reading it perhaps for the first time some of you. Let me know if you have any objections or comments. - Judy, this is Reggie, I just want the group to know we sent Jake some kind of technical on the statutes like 245C and 66 that update itself. So, we sent those as clarification that statutes cites. Their way into the draft we just did that this week. All right, we'll make sure I made a note to make sure we get those corrected, thank you. Okay, so unless I hear any objections I'm gonna suggest we just move on, this is to a recommendation 8.7. - Judy, this is Mary, it is nine o'clock. It is nine o'clock, I think we are out of time. #NAME? add that I was a leader of this work group and this was all supported unanimously by our work group. [Hollee] So are we gonna expect any opposition from our work group, very minor changes just tweaks to clarify there didn't seem to be contention when we discussed Duty 8, it'd be awesome to just get through this right now. I would move that if it's okay with the chair of making a motion to approve the Duty aid recommendations as presented here, and then the table stuff we can discuss next time or whatever, or skip it. [Judy] All right, any objections to what's written for Duty 8 on this page. (indistinct) Let's make it quick Cynthia. [Cynthia] I was sent that in the sense that this was unanimous without contention is not accurately representative.I will concede that these things are a compromise in a way to go forward. [Judy] Okay, Scott. [Scott] No objection. And I know it's late, but on eight point 10 I think that's the DHS manual that the deed big book does not fall through the cracks if that continues that somehow the D document comes into eight, 10 minutes old, no need for edits and overtime but that's what practitioners are using out here working with startups. [Judy] Got it, okay, and then was that, go ahead. [Regina] Judy, we just DHS, I know there was some revisions to 8.7. So, I think we just wanna say a couple of things. One, it still requires an IT solution, it's not easy to just go in even on one page and create a search function. So you know, that would just be one thing in terms of it being a recommendation to us to create that. But the other thing, we looked at some data for questions that are coming in, and just wanted people to know that, you know, in 2020 with we got 30 out of 7,200 providers across the state, we get 30 provider questions through that page in. And 2019 we got 11, and 2018 we got 26. Many of them are for things like I need a copy of my license sent to me 'cause I need it for the food program. I'm trying to figure out how I can access my training record in developed. Certainly there are some that are substantive, but there are a significant number that are not substantive. So, I offer that information because I think like many of our programs, it likely suggest that people are using their licensor as their main place to get their questions answered, and that's what we would want, that's what we would expect. And, you know, it's not used in a robust way whether people thought that's what it would be or not, I didn't go back further than 2018. So, you know, I understand that the recommendation I know other things in here people have flagged that there's likely a cost, I'm just trying to say even this like edit to it or narrowing or, you know, refine an idea I can see that trying to happen, I guess but this still does have an IT need on our end, it's not anything that DHS can do so I wanna clarify that that still exists, and then just want it to offer some data that it's also just not robust, and what we really are trying to do is make sure that we're taking questions that come in and build them into other places on our website to make information more available or, you know and I think it doesn't suggest that there are the same types of questions that are constantly coming in so it's always facts specific. [Judy] Great, go ahead. #NAME? Demuth to the co-chairs. I know we're past time, but rather than just kind of doing a mass approval of eight without walking through as we have given the other items and the other duties, a fair chance, just wondering if we could either hold off until the next meeting or if we could address this another way rather than just pushing this through. [Mary] It's not a matter of pushing things through, representative Demuth, it's a matter of seeing that what happens sometimes is people start dropping off and you lose members of the task force, everybody just can just stay later. So, I just wanna be sure that if we are moving through this, it wasn't my idea to just go take one motion and do them all, but it was, everybody has to consider the fact that you'd need to think carefully before we embroil ourselves in deep discussion. So if we can move on one after one, after one after the other, if it was fair to give it a try to see if the whole group would, but if not, then yes but we're gonna be here to and everybody should stay on. - And this is representative Wazlawik, I had thought that the only one we didn't agree should go on the draft report was the one that's highlighted 0.7. Maybe I'm not right in that, but I thought that was, I thought we had talked through... Correct me if I'm wrong folks but I thought we had talked through other pieces of representative. So, I don't know why we would have to be harsh tho, that we've already decided on it seems like 8.7 is the last piece if we wanna take that on this evening, that we could just do it up or down vote on that. [Judy] Hollee, I'm sorry we were emailed and told to tweak that that was something at the last meeting that we were told we needed to tweak. And then in the subsequent email follow up to that meeting you were asked to just clarify that was not something that was opposed, it was the anonymous piece that was never went in and that was from many meetings that go. But this one was actually something that... We were just supposed to tweak it to clarify that it was a search function on that specific page not a generic search, a new search page. So this was not something that was stricken. Correct so just to clarify, 8.7 is a tweak, a rewrite based on the conversation last time, and it is the only change to the recommendations under Duty 8. So to the only thing that we have to look at/ So, we could do just a simple up and down and be done. And that's what I'd suggest, so Jess, if you could drop this off. So, I can see people those of you in favor of keeping 8.7 as written on your draft in the report, raise your hands. [Hollee] I'm sorry, Judy it cut out, I just wanna make sure we're voting to approve Duty 8 as presented. [Judy] We are voting on a recommendation 8.7, okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, Jess what are you getting? [Judy] 10. [Jessica] I've got 10 as well. [Hollee] Sorry, Julie got kicked out again she was voting yes, I don't know if that counted. Everyone keeps it's just very, yeah [Judy] I did not have her, so, that's 11, okay. Anyone opposed once it's out? Raise your hand. [Kim] No I don't, I don't really care. [Judy] Okay, and I'm getting three, okay, so we've got three opposed. So, we'll stay on, all right. Done, I think we've gotten to where we had to get tonight. Senator Kiffmeyer, would you like to take us out? Oh you're on mute. [Mary] I thought I had my cursor on mute so I could just do it more quickly but it actually had jumped to something else. Fortunately, it did not be out. One last thing on Duty 1 there's duplicative language and also language that talks about feelings. So, I just wanna park that here Duty 1 number. Two things in the survey, I just never really liked feelings in some of these things so I had it on my list to mention it but we kind of jumped over Duty 1. So, let's take a look at that, it may just be something that needs to be tweaked a little bit and with some of this other things if we can add that one to it as well. [Judy] Got it. That okay, Judy? [Judy] Yep, got it. [Mary] Okay. All right with that we have concluded our business for tonight, I wanna thank you all for sticking with it. There's still a fair amount of controversy that concerns me and some things that we will maybe need to work out further as we go. But nonetheless, I think our ability to go to more tonight has finished and we will see you all on January 28th. Thank you very much, everybody. [Judy] Bye. [Hollee] Have a great night, have a good night. (computer beeping) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download