Family Child Care Task Force Meeting Transcript #NAME? one of the Codian is the live stream. So if you're speaking ever on mic, you get put into that box. That's where I see him now. (Jake laughing) (indistinct)

#NAME? sometimes there's two of me and it looks like when I'm talking, okay, so everybody just knows that.

#NAME? but that's a good thing. That's to say that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed and we'll know that by there's a box out there in the gallery view that says this is Codian MSC 8510. So that is the live stream feed.

#NAME? How many do we have on so far? - Apologies, I'm in the middle of doing some headcount and we have 11, 12, 13, I believe right now. More coming in as I'm speaking.

#NAME? How many do we have now, Jake? - We have 16 members, 16 of the 26 members listed. - What do you think Judy, wait a couple more minutes? -

[Judy] Yeah, let's give folks just a couple minutes to navigate the weird internet stuff. -

[Mary] Okay, sounds good. Jake, is anybody trying to get in that we're waiting on or...

#NAME? I don't know if Kyle has either, but it seems like people who are trying again are getting in. So we haven't heard anything about technical difficulties at this point.

#NAME? Hello representative Wazlawik, good to see you. - Hello, I'm in a different room tonight so my background looks a little bit different.

#NAME? A matter of fact, I have a different laptop I'm using. So if the view looks a little fuzzy it's because I have one of those pieces of scotch tape, not scotch tape, masking tape over the camera. And it's been on a long time (chuckling). So I pulled it off, I tried to clean it but I don't think I got it very clean. I was afraid to injure it. So if I look a little leery, that's the residue of that tape. I know they have those really nice clip on things, that would be a good thing to get.

#NAME? is always in the drawer. That's the thing. (Mary laughing) If you look blurry it's-- (Mary and Judy laughing)

#NAME? IT come into my office to help me with something and he noticed my piece of tape, he said, "Oh, that's just like mine." (Judy laughing) Even the IT guys use the shortcuts though. I think we are gonna go ahead and get started though. It's about 6:04 on my computer time slots, so welcome everybody to the Family Child Care Task Force meeting number 13. This is Tuesday, November 17th, 2020, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. Central Time. So thank you everybody that could be here tonight. I know with next week Thanksgiving, time is moving fast and I know

1

for school kids, there's all kinds of things going on. So I really appreciate that you took time to join us tonight. So I'll call the meeting to order and then those are just a few brief comments. So with that, we can move on to business at the task force and in particular, the approval of the October 20th and October 27th meeting minutes. Did anybody have any changes or comments to the previous meeting minutes? Just give a hand up if you want to then I could see you. If you turn your camera on. I don't see any. So we'll go for that right now. What's the procedure, Judy for voting on minutes? Do we raise our hands?

#NAME? the minutes as presented. (Judy laughing) - Yes, we've been doing them as a voice or a hand vote unless there's an issue and then we resort to a roll call.

#NAME? So everybody, you can put yourself on video so we can see the camera and I'll call for a vote and the motion is to approve October 20th and October 27th meeting minutes. All those in favor, say aye and raise your hand.

#NAME? -

[Woman 1] Aye. -

[Woman 2] Aye. -

[Woman 3] Aye. -

[Woman 4] Aye.

#NAME? Do we need to have a second as well or, sorry.

#NAME? Not for minutes. Okay, the ayes have it and the motion does prevail on the approval of the October 20th and October 27th meeting minutes. So then the very first item that we're gonna go for is to review the report creation timeline. I believe Judy you're gonna do that for us so we can just walk through the report creation timeline.

#NAME? Okay, so this is the You Are Here Map for this activity. So obviously you've received the first draft. I've gotten your comments back via Jake and incorporated them into the draft that was sent to you today. It's the same one that we'll be showing on screen tonight so if it's easier for you to follow along, if you printed a copy, go ahead. And what is put on screen tonight, we're not going to be editing on screen. I'm gonna be taking copious notes so I can do a round two of edits over the next few days. And then I intend to get you the next version by the end of the day on the 30th of November. So you will have time to take a look at that prior to our December meeting. So that's the timeframe. I'm hopeful that between the review of this draft and we will have conversation as we go through tonight, I think there are many areas of pretty much total agreement. There are some areas where we have a few things to discuss. There's a few areas where we have more contentious, possibly conversation to have. We'll do what we can tonight to resolve those things and to have a limited number of topics that we need to follow up on in our December meeting. But the ultimate goal of this between tonight's conversation and December's conversation is to see what we can agree on, what we can get a majority of folks to support that goes into the report and then we do a final vote in January to send that off to the legislature. So like most things in life, it won't be perfect but we're aiming for darn good. So I'm gonna segue right into our order of business tonight is to walk through this report. Now, as I said, I'm gonna be taking copious

2

notes. So unless someone has suggested alternative language that we're looking at, we aren't otherwise going to be editing in real time, okay? I'll get the gist of where you wanna go and then I'll incorporate that into the next draft. I wanna thank those of you who gave us comments. Those are sort of the basis for telling me where we need to pay attention tonight and the comments were included, the recommendations as they showed up in this draft report for what you said should move forward and it took them verbatim and then just plopped them in. I also used as the basis for the report, your interim report. Including I have to say some truly funky fonts and format and anyway I had moments where I was talking to the document. Let's just put it that way. So if you see some things that are funny, I'm gonna blame whoever the first author was 'cause yeah, I wouldn't have set it up quite that way. That's okay. Enough whining on my part. I did ask for people to point out things that were already in play. We knew from our conversations there were some recommendations with something that was being suggested and folks were saying, but there's also this thing over here that's already happening. So those are, I think, reflected in the comments as well. So we can cover some of those. And we'd also asked about if there were any conflicts with federal law or other regulations. So a couple of those points come up as well. I will say I did ask because we need to incorporate is there a funding requirement or not for some of these things and I asked that DHS take a look at that. I did not incorporate that into the gist of this draft. We'll have that in for the December draft and I'm not exactly sure how and where it will show up, but we'll get that in as well. So if you had a chance to open the document today and I know it came in the middle of a workday and so like if you had time to eat lunch, you were lucky, right? So I'm not assuming that you had time to read it or study up, but if you had time to open it you would see that the comments we received back from you folks, I plopped it in there. I color coded. So there are some that were color coded with a light blue. And in my read of it, I saw those as being mainly editorial clarifications, correcting an incorrect item. And so I don't intend that we will spend a lot of time on those tonight. We'll kinda breeze past them and acknowledge that they're there and if anybody has a, whoop! Wait a minute kind of moment, you need to let us know but it's not my intent to spend a lot of time on those. The green issues are where we might either have some disagreements about approach where we didn't resolve those in the earlier admittedly, somewhat brief conversations about some of the recommendations. Some of them just need clarity where not everyone's sure what exactly they mean. Some have some new language to consider and/or could be some combination of all of those. So my hope is that we will get all the way through the report. We'll talk about all of those green areas. If we can resolve them tonight, that's great. If they are resolvable with a little further work and tweaking, that's great. If we need to talk them again in December to hone it down, that's fine. But at some point we will get on some of these to a point where we may just not be able to get to agreement. And so again, this is a practical exercise of getting to where we can get. Let's see what else I can say. Yeah, and again, if there are some conversations we get into tonight that look like they are going to require a significant amount of time, we will table them. If there's time tonight, we can come back to them or we will put them on for December, all right?

#NAME? I printed off a paper copy. Of course I don't have any blue or green on the paper copy. That may be the case for others. So when you get to those areas that are that way like Duty 3 recommendation, there's Stephanie Griffin right there. Just in case. I'm using my phone right now so I can see the colors 'cause I'm on my laptop. Not everybody has the whole thing. Just to let you know on others.

#NAME? I mean, we're all trying to make this technology work in one way or another. So if you are able to see it on screen, Jake will be showing the document as we're scrolling through. So you'll be able to see where we are. If you're on phone or your screen's not allowing you to see or you're working off your phone to do it and you

3

have a hard copy, remind me because I can also reference the page number and the line number. That's why we have them in there. We have anchors to turn to. So if I forget to say, we're at this point on page 12, line 41, a blue item. If I don't include all of that and you need me to clarify, by all means, just keep reminding me. It's the details that I breathe right past and need reminders on, okay? So as I said, we're going from start to finish on some of these things that are less controversial, I'm just gonna say any objections, hearing none, moving on. (Judy laughing) So cover some ground. Where we need to in more in depth, we will up to a point because we wanna cover the whole report. And again, there may be times when Jake is showing the document and then because I need to see your faces for the conversation it might go down. So this is the heads up that there might be some times where you say, "Okay, now we need a show of hands." And just as Senator Kiffmeyer did for the minutes, it'll be, put yourself back on video so we can see you, okay? All right, and then the last thing is because some of you who've worked with me over time and even this group in this experience, when I'm in the middle of a conversation I forget to give people breaks and that's a horrible thing. So you're gonna have to help remind me that, "It's time, Judy, give us five minutes away from this screen," and I will be glad to accommodate that. I just will forget. So with that, I think we are ready. So Jake, can you pull up the document and just we'll breeze through the first couple of pages? - Yes, I'll do that right now. Bear with me here as I find it on my desktop. Okay, I've got it here. Great, should be coming up momentarily. -

[Mary] Here we go. All right, so that's the... can you (indistinct)? Full screen it. -

[Judy] Those are your notes, Jake. (Jake laughing)

#NAME? Let me stop that. To me one document's open, one sec here. All right-

#NAME? while he's finding this. So I was on a Zoom call with my brother-in-law. We were trying to resolve a computer issue that I was having and he says "Here, let me show you my screen." And it was a Words with Friends screen. I said, "Are you playing Words with Friends instead of paying attention to my work?" It's the deal here.

#NAME? Okay, so prior to this page, there was only one suggestion and it had to do with, on the list of who's on the task force and Cindy has suggested a correction to say, family childcare provider to change that to licensed family childcare provider. So that's the only thing we have in these early pages. -

[Hollee] And then my name is listed twice.

#NAME? but I think Jake took it off or someone took it off. So that's good.

#NAME? We will maybe make a note that we can confirm that membership list one more time just before we finalize this. Okay, so rolling along the first few pages are the background of the study. I did an entire cut and paste. This is out of your interim report. I didn't change anything, okay? Until we get to the topics discussed, go on. Keep going, next page Jake. Right, and then I simply did right there the recitation of what you had in terms of meetings for this second part of the task force. No one had any comments there because there's nothing to comment on. It's all pretty straightforward. Moving into the first duty. Let's go to the first, there. So this was one of those editorial things regarding the survey include how many responded. So we'll put some of that data in. Okay, next round, keep going. Okay, for Duty 2. So we're now on, what page are we on? So Duty 2 is page 11, and on line nine, Hollee makes the suggestion that just like in the introduction to Duty 1, which I have to confess

4

I didn't write, that saying something about why we're looking at this issue ought to be in there. So unless there's any objection I will include a few words that reflect that need in this description. But again, Duty 2 at this point was a cut and paste from the previous document. So I can add a little bit in, unless I hear from any of you that you have an issue. -

[Cindy] Cindy here, so you're saying-- -

[Judy] Okay, here in nine, move on. - Oh, snap (indistinct). I'm trying. Oh, good. Am I there?

#NAME? - Okay (laughing). -

[Judy] You are (laughing).

[Mary] I'm getting apex. - So for Duty 2 what's written there is what was in the original information, correct?

#NAME? line one on page 11 through line four on page 12. That's the cut and paste from your interim report. - Okay, I guess I'm gonna suggest... I will suggest that without kind of a deep discussion, that the suggested edition of the over regulation (indistinct) that part of it, that Hollee suggested not be included. I think it needs to stay with what we have had. There are some different views, on different information out there about why there are demise in family childcare. What Hollee shares is one of the things, but unless we're gonna go through everything, I really wouldn't support the addition for change.

#NAME? All right, any other chiming otherwise? So I'm gonna keep going. Let's go to page 12 then. -

[Kim] This is Kim and I agree with Cindy.

#NAME? because the thing we're saying or that Hollee is saying is that there was some sort of introduction or explanation before Duty 1 and she was commenting that if you're gonna do it for one, then you should do them for all and Duty 2 was missing that. If it needs to be something different, the bigger issue is, is there an introductory, otherwise maybe we strike in Duty 1 the first two paragraphs as well and just go halfway.

#NAME? On Duty 1, this is again, cut and paste from, well, Duty 1 was cut and paste from your interim report. Duty 2 was doctored to say the survey actually occurred because in your interim report it said there will be a survey. So there's nothing there about background for what the needs are. It's simply a statement of process. So-

#NAME? I don't see what you're pointing to Hollee in Duty 1 that would be similar I guess. It launches right into (indistinct). I was confused when I read this earlier, I confess. - The survey language on Duty 1 notes some of the reasons why providers disclose and so I thought that would be worth noting. Otherwise Duty 2, the only thing it talks about is Dr. Feeney's stuff, really and that doesn't encompass everything about Duty 2. That's all, I just thought it deserved a better explanation of the reasons for some of us suggest the recommendations in Duty 2. - But Duty 1 was actually about getting feedback from providers about reasons and Duty 2 is about regulatory reform. So it seems to me that they're doing what they're supposed to do in the descriptions.

5

#NAME? you look at every other duty there's lengthy description about the reason for the recommendations in there, it's fine. We just take a voice or a raise of hands vote whether something should be included in there or not. So we can move on.

#NAME? And those of you who are not on screen if you can get your smiley faces, everybody look happy. We're gonna take a picture. - I'm a little confused about what we're doing here right now. So I don't wanna vote until I get an understanding.

#NAME? So Hollee has made the suggestion that we include something in the introduction other than the Dr. Feeney stuff that says here's why we're looking at regulatory reform. So some of the rationale behind it. If you think that there should be more rationale included at that point, raise your hands. - For me it's, whatever. - Okay, I'm not seeing an overwhelming agreement so, pardon me, Mary. - I wasn't finished and I'm still not sure what we voted on. -

[Judy] Okay. -

[Hollee] We're voting on deciding whether or not my suggestion about including additional language for the reasons for Duty 2, the recommendations should be included. - So Hollee has a suggestion on page 11, lines nine through 13 that says we should expound a little more on the reasons why we're looking at regulatory reforms. The other language here for all of page 11 in the first paragraph of page 12 is from your interim report. So it's true, that part does not reflect any other reason than the Dr. Feeney conversation. Okay, so Hollee's suggestion is nine through 13, nine through 12 on page 11 and what we were doing was a show of hands for anyone who thinks we ought to do that. Not standing on formality here, let's try that one more time. Those of you who think we should, raise your hands. Okay, so we still don't have an overwhelming majority so we're gonna move on. All right, and then we're on page 12. So on line 10 on page 12 and Julie you made the comment, I believe the 2019 interim report was to consider developing a model. The way this is written now it appears we had suggested to move forward with the model at that time." So again, through line four on that page was from your interim report. So if we were to change that it kind of revisits the interim report. Any thoughts, group? (indistinct)

#NAME? I don't know that, if we're doing a final report and you're including all of the previous, Judy, if you're saying we can't even go there, I mean, is that what you're saying, that we can't touch any of the interim report? That means- -

[Judy] No, I simply change that-

#NAME? clarify in the final report.

#NAME? what you have there through line four on page 12, is simply the language from the interim report. So my question to you is, do you need to change some of that language from the interim report, which is a bigger conversation or was it more confusing the paragraph from line six to line eight on that page which was meant to be a transitional paragraph that I put in? That is my writing. That says in 2020, the task force work group further discussed Duty 2, the work group considered how to improve licensing efficiency, development of a risk-based data-driven tiered violation system with enforcement mechanisms that are relative to the risk from a violation. So that was meant to say, these are the other things that we discussed.

6

#NAME? two revisit the question of whether it was a consider or a do? - That's the key point. - I guess I don't understand where in the language it says, "Do it." From what I read it says that we would authorize funding to work with the consultant to develop. It doesn't say... I mean, that's a future looking thing, so the idea being that we would be doing that at some point, but not and so that's where my confusion is. It doesn't necessarily mean we use the model if we develop a model, I guess that's where my confusion is, is that that language around developing something doesn't necessarily mean that you're using it, I guess is where I'm unclear about the language. - I think Judy I can't, Judy, if you can speak, it'd be better for you to speak, but I think that you're just only referencing the one paragraph in lines 37 to 41. I think it is, that talks about as part of the 2019 interim report that the task force recommendation in that report was to consider the possibility of that or something. I mean, I don't think this is worth arguing about honestly, I think it's fine to keep it in here because one of our recommendations from this year is to actually authorize funding for it. - Right, that's what I was asking. So it sounds like you've moved on to actually authorizing it and since the original interim report didn't say consider, it said whatever it said, it seems I had to go back and change it now. That's all I was asking.

#NAME? and said that no one can hear her. - That's correct, we cannot (laughing). Oh, so I'm not sure Kyle if there's something you can do on, or Erin on, if there's anything on our end that can be done so we can hear Judy. -

[Erin] I can try unmuting her but she's muted.

#NAME? -

[Erin] For some reason I can't unmute her. - Okay, so if someone's in text contact with Judy and can let her know she's got a mute issue on that end. I'm gonna just wrap this up and move on.

#NAME? - Hey, that's better. Hey Judy

[Judy] I'm sorry I even brought this up. I thought that the interim report from last year that we sent in didn't say develop. I am so sorry I even brought this up. It was not a huge deal. I apologize that I couldn't get on here sooner. I thought that was a misprint from what we had discussed last year because we didn't wanna say develop. I am so sorry. Sorry, don't even worry about it. I never should have brought it.

#NAME? No worries. All right, so moving right along then. We have the Duty 2 recommendations. So these comments received from y'all are in blue because I think that they are just friendly edits. So for recommendation 2.1 Senator Wiklund suggests, think the word process should be added after the words licensing review, either that or make it for full and abbreviated licensing reviews, both of which would help clarify it a bit. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm gonna say let's move on to the next blue item. -

[Judy] We go with on reviews, plural. - That's not (indistinct).

#NAME? different suggestions so I'm suggesting going with reviews to keep it consistent since that's the terminology is we don't use the word process. That's all.

#NAME? gist of where you want to go, I'll take it from there and do the fine tuning. Okay, so the next blue item is lines 41 to 45 on page 12 and it's with regard to recommendation 2.6, which has an A3 in on it, which is inappropriate. It should be 2.3. So yeah, it makes that clearer. So we'll just make that correction. So moving onto

7

the next page, page 13 and this was the recommendation for counties. So there were two comments with regard to item 2.9 reviewing the county licensing forms and their use. Now, Judy, you had a comment and I misinterpreted where it was going and landed in a weird spot that had nothing to do with anything. I think this is the home for it. So you can tell me if I'm incorrect in that assumption. If I am correct you said, I thought the recommendation was to use DHS forms so we have consistency," and Hollee's saying, I suggest clarifying recommendation 2.9 'cause the point was that county shouldn't require different forms so they can offer optional forms." -

[Kim] This is Kim. - First of all, did I get-- and that is correct. I think the issue with 2.9 is that there was a very heavy discussion about it because counties use different forms to make their jobs and their lives easier. The issue is that there are licensing workers out there making applicants or providers use forms that are not required or that they should not be forcing them to do. So the point isn't necessarily about the forms, it's about individual licensors having providers do something that they shouldn't and a couple of different things about that is that licensing workers cannot write correction orders for things that are not in rule in statute. If that is happening, providers have two... minimum two different ways of fighting those things like legal statutory. One is called a request for reconsideration and the other one is looking into the interpretation of the rule and statute. It was in there that the counties could only use DHS forms and as a group, we did not think that that was okay. So it came into this review county licensing forms and their use. That's why it's so gray and speaking as a licensing worker, I actually don't think it should be in here at all. I can think of two forms that we use in Dakota County that expedite our process for getting providers licensed and that actually help their jobs as well. We don't force them to do it and I would never do a correction order, but it helps.

#NAME? It seems to me that the point here is that county licensors should only require those forms that are required and the others are optional. They should just be clear about it. If it's helpful and it's optional and then the provider has the choice to use it or not and Kim because you do things so well in your county, well there's 87 of them and sometimes all it takes is one or two who don't do things that way. So let's do this on the basis of- - But this isn't about the forms. That's my point. This is about licensing workers not doing their jobs properly. It's not about forms. There are licensing workers out there that write correction orders or do things that they shouldn't do all the time and that's a problem. Believe me, that's a problem. It's not about the forms. It's about individual licensing workers.

#NAME? am I cracking a bone?

#NAME? What should be written here and what shouldn't be?

#NAME? that out in our committee because we didn't agree that the county should be forced to use only DHS forms. So this is what we came up with as a way to say, okay counties should look at what they're forcing people to do but... and I would love for anyone else to chime in. I just feel this was a really big discussion in this group, in this subgroup. So I will step out now.

#NAME? would like to step in and say that we did have a look at this and even DHS chimed in and said, there aren't that many forms that DHS even requires for (indistinct). So if you're limiting the tools that we use to license people, you're limiting our ability to get information and to work with these people and get to know them and to make sure that they're providing quality and supervision and all of the things that we want them to

8

provide to children. So limiting the abilities of the provider or the licensors to do their jobs, I don't think needs to be here. (indistinct) - Since there's been concern of my words. I never said, ever ever said that county should be restricted to only those forms. What I said tonight was on the record that it should be clear to providers which are required and which are optional, optionally helpful. I just didn't limit any county, whatsoever from offering an optional form but it should be clear to the providers what is required and what is optional. That is quite consistent with many many other types of licensing things to be clear about what is required and what is optional. I just wanna be clear about what my words were.

#NAME? and also there was another suggestion about only the use of DHS forms. That's why I think things got a little conflated. So, there does not seem to be agreement on this one and it seems that there's a lot packed into what's behind the recommendation on 2.9 about forms that might get to something that's bigger than forms. A couple of thoughts. I don't know that the work group is willing to reconvene and discuss this one and propose some alternative language. I could also put this out as part of this next review swipe for, tell me what this really ought to say 'cause there's not enough for me to go on here to make a change. So, Group 2 are you willing to reconvene or would you prefer that I put this out to the group for possible revisions?

#NAME? am I talking? (Cindy laughing) Alright, hi, I was in Group 2 and we did work really diligently on this. This has been a problem more so before the (indistinct) tool and some of the other things that I've done, it can still be a problem. We landed on this use of it and I think it's a good use which is that the county should be reviewing it. And Kim and Lanay have talked about trying to help work with license service and support this lack of the other forms being required. I think that's such a different piece than what this whole 32 is about, that it should stay as it's written in 2.9.

#NAME? from Cindy's comment. Jake, if I can see people's faces, please and if you can all get on screen, I'm going to ask you if we should just leave item 2.9 as it is written, okay? If you agree that item 2.9 should stay as it is written, please raise your hands. Raise your hands where I can see them on screen (laughing). Thank you. Okay, of the members we have present we have a majority say, leave it as is and so I will. 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. All right, let's breathe on down to the next spot and that is recommendation 2.13. So first of all, Judy had a comment about the placement 'cause it shows up as other recommendation and she says, "Should this be included under DHS recommendations? This is a huge burden to providers and extremely important." And then, so from DHS some feedback saying, This is a little vague, a bit vague. There's many required forms that are already fillable PDFs and are or can be submitted electronically. A centralized portal would likely be a significant IT undertaking and there's a fiscal impact." So just the reality of it. My question to you is that I think there are two things. One is, is the proper wording in 2.13 streamlined and eliminate unnecessary paper? Is the emphasis, let's get away from a paper-based system and depend more on electronic transmission and storage. And if that's the case then that's an easy edit to take the part of the word workout. And the second is placement. Should we indeed put this in a different spot and move it up? Any thoughts?

#NAME? I agree with Judy. I think that if it's left there that gives the impression that that's not important. I think it should be moved. To where? I don't know. I would take the group's recommendation on that. -

[Judy] Okay, other thoughts?

9

#NAME? I think we struggled because if it's under DHS that doesn't totally make sense either because it would be effected by counties when the counties are doing a lot of the work. So I think we struggled with, how would you or where would you find a workforce or someone to work on this? Because it would require both the counties and DHS and other IT developers as well.

#NAME? saying other recommendation say joint DHS county recommendation? - I would say it's gonna be.

#NAME? seems to be diminishing and we don't wanna do that, okay? So unless I hear other concerns, I'm gonna say joint DHS county recommendation. Hearing no concerns. All right, and do you agree with my... least informed person in the room is me, with my summation that 2.13 is about streamline and eliminate unnecessary paper? -

[Mary] Yes. - That's really what the gist of this-- - That's fine. That's fine. - All right, go ahead Erin. Yep, good. -

[Erin] I was saying- - Let's move on to the next green slot which was Kim who had suggested adding a couple of recommendations for providers. Don't pay attention to the numbers 'cause the way things are numbered above got a little (indistinct) but she adds, is suggesting adding two, first is knowledge of compliance with all rules and statutes. Second is recruitment for involvement from providers statewide obtaining a diverse group. Kim, do you wanna say anything about those? -

[Kim] No, except that I think if I said it that way, I meant knowledge and compliance, not knowledge of, and again, I know we're not doing that stuff right now but, this would read wrong. That's it.

#NAME? group, your thoughts on these?

#NAME? we could have then add to licenses, knowledge and compliance with all rules and statutes. Why would we do that? It implies that they don't... that it's really kinda negative. -

[Kim] I don't have rules and statutes to follow in my job.

#NAME? I would say that if you're adding, sorry if you're adding it for providers, I would think that you would need to add it for licensors too. I don't think it needs to be added at all but because we've already talked about that and you admitted Kim that it's an issue with some licensors not following the rules and the statutes and so you could argue that everyone in this profession and the people who are trying to enforce the state rules and statutes would need to know them too. I don't think it's necessary to include it. It's kind of a given in the jobs of a provider and the jobs of a licenser. I'm worried that legislators won't read this. The public won't read this if it gets too long. I mean, I can add a bunch of things after each one. -

[Kim] And I don't disagree with anything anyone is saying except that if there is a general consensus that licensing workers and providers are doing their jobs, we wouldn't be having some of these conversations. - Looking at the language, I guess I'm just not seeing, when you look at the language of Duty 2, it's about regulatory reforms, et cetera. I don't really see how those specific sort of additions fall under that duty. I think it would make more sense if it was something like the knowledge of and compliance with updated rules and statutes or something regarding the fact that we're making changes but I think that's- -

[Kim] It's okay, we can take them out. I don't care. We can take them out.

10

#NAME? Cindy, you had sent something and said it was with regard to Duty 2 and I wasn't sure I understood it. So I just passed it onto the end of this part. So Cindy I'm gonna put you on the spot here, be ready. - That's okay.

#NAME? throughout duty so we're now at the top of page 14. Improvements to topics on Connie resources webpages and communication, DHS work with providers as end users through all tasks, providers engaged in all areas of engagement, all providers, key leadership. I wasn't quite sure where you were going with that so I wanted to just see what your advice was to us. - Well, there was one point, don't ask me where it was in the... look at this document with these kinds of ideas and as I kept going through, these were repeated topics in multiple duties. -

[Judy] Okay.

#NAME? and I guess is that those are things that are consistent through many of the duties that is repetitious. Not a bad repetition, but just if there was a different way to word it or did it need to be under each time, or I think there was a wording in there. Things that could be pulled out and put in one different spot. - Okay, so I'm gonna take that as an editorial advice piece and make a note to myself to see how to address these repeated topics. Even if it's to acknowledge that once again, the issue of X comes up kind of a wording. So if that seems all right, Cindy, are we good with that? -

[Cindy] Yep, that's good. - So moving on to Duty 3. So we had a couple of blue items on the first page. Hollee and Kim both suggest referencing the rules and statutes which I certainly can do with a little help from people who will make sure I get the sites correct. So keep going down to item 3.1. Okay, right there. So, 3.1 was the recommendation addressing liability and as I recall you had a significant conversation about this as well. And Stephanie expressed some concerns about the idea of removing liability, which is included in the language of 3.1. And she has alternative language, which is on line four through nine. It's the bold language there. Change the liability that hinders granting variances including working with counties and providers to consider how to best modify the terms of liability from county licensors and county agencies, for knowledge of non-compliance with licensing standards. The goals of this would be to better equalize and increase access to allowable variances among counties while protecting the health, safety and development of children in care. So there you have an alternative recommendation, 3.1. So my question to you is should we go with the alternative proposed language? -

[Kim] I guess my question would be, is... these are counties and the providers that would be working on like a committee, I guess I'm asking Stephanie, would be working on this committee to modify the terms of the liability and then bringing that to legislation. Is that what you meant, Stephanie? - I guess I didn't mean a formal committee necessarily, so I'd be open to that but I know Senator Kiffmeyer has some draft language and of course she was working with counties and providers and us on some of that language originally and I guess I saw that as an opportunity informally. My point in including that was that the stakeholders to be involved in the development of the legislation and just to emphasize, I don't even know that where we were going was entirely removed liability off of the counties and licensors and not... I think I was more worried about the wording than the intent of our recommendation, if that makes sense. But at the same time I could... a lot of these conversations happened a long time ago.

11

#NAME? it was all presented in the House and the Senate last year, there was a lot of confusion and there was like people that testified against the language. So I think it is bigger than just having some people chat. I don't care. I don't know if it needs to be more significant. That's all. (indistinct)

#NAME? It is legal. It is allowable for variances 'cause it's in statute. I think the question is, how are variances handled? So what Stephanie put here is to better equalize and increase access to allowable variances among counties while protecting the health, safety and development of children. That's been the ultimate thing and we tried a couple of different pieces of language. It didn't quite hit the mark but you don't know that till you put it out there and you have an open committee hearing, you talk about it and you work it through but this is really something that, just to remind us all if we insist are currently in statute. So the problem was the counties were telling us we can't do variances because of this liability. So I tried to address the issue for counties that they said was a hindrance to them giving variances and I took them at their face value. They said, this was an issue and I worked with Maxima and I worked with the County Attorney Association. We had an open committee hearing on the subject, but that's not unusual that sometimes something doesn't quite go right. Then we go back to work on it and sometimes we'd come up the next time and it goes through quite readily because you've vetted and you've heard all those issues. It doesn't mean failure. So the counties are still the ones that are able to give variances but one of the things was that the difference between the counties and how to better equalize, I think that Stephanie our wording here, I would support taking your language instead of what we have. I'm fine with that. I think that says our goal.

#NAME? do a quick show of hands to see if that suggested alternative language should be swapped out for recommendation 3.1? So if you're in favor of taking the revised language and replacing 3.1 with the revised language, please raise your hands. Okay, my computer is doing a funny thing. Some of you are flashing on and off but there is a majority for that so we will do it. Okay, thank you very much. Back to the document, Jake. (throat clearing) All right, if you can scroll down to the next green slot, there we are. So Kim had a suggestion talking about items 3.2 and 3.3 saying, "Some of the recommendations for legislative action are already starting in January of 2021. These will be required in January, 2021, doesn't need to be a part of this." So are you all in agreement? This is one word. Shout back at me if you think this is not the case. Should 3.2 and 3.3 be taken out? (indistinct)

#NAME? were approved or passed in 2020 legislation just to clarify but still show that the task force thought they were important and that's the reason there was legislation in 2020 for it.

#NAME? this, Judy, not to delete it. It's a success. - Okay, we will clarify, acknowledge that these were passed in 2020 and still important but at least then people will understand that they are in process. Got it? Good, okay move on to 3.4 and Kim had a comment. Now the recommendation says collaborate with counties to develop best practices and Kim says collaborate only cannot force ideas which I take as a hazard. Yes, collaborate. Correct, Kim? -

[Kim] Yes. - Okay, so then Kim on 3.5 and 3.7, you make the comment about the law needs to change regarding licenser liability. So that's back up to the recommendation 3.1. - Yeah, I think that's covered with Stephanie's suggestion earlier.

#NAME? 3.7, we would do the same saying that it was successful.

12

#NAME? Wasn't there... there was a uniform form that was supposed to be used. I don't recall that it was variance in particular, maybe not. DHS, you had a requirement in statute to work with the stakeholder group and to consult with the task force on that uniform form. Do we have a status on that, is this referring to it?

#NAME? and licensors that worked on it. Several people in this task force were involved with that. (indistinct) -

[Reggie] Yes, this is Reggie. I apologize, I was on mute. Yes, we've done this, we've developed it. We worked with a group, it's been distributed to counties as part of some of these as Kim and others acknowledged are already actively being worked on.

#NAME?

#NAME? I do think we should change the language then of this one to more of accomplished. I mean, some notation that says something was changed, had happened and is in process. That would be that the interim report was to get it done and the final report, I think it'd be very helpful to legislators to see this and to know things got done also. So just might mean changing the language of it, Judy, which would be more editorial.

#NAME? All right, it's seven o'clock. We've been at it for an hour, do you need a five minute break? -

[Mary] Yep. - I'm seeing a few nods so five minutes, be back here at 7:08. -

[Scott] Judy? -

[Judy] Yes. -

[Scott] It's Scott, I know as folks are coming back I know there's a formatting bigger topic on number four. I prepared to make a statement on behalf of our work group when you start that, if you'd like to frame that first. - That'd be great, yeah. That'd be great, thanks. -

[Scott] Gladly.

#NAME? I just have to say it's fun to see the varied backgrounds as people move from room to room in their locations and Liz a shout out because it looks like you've got the Christmas tree up behind you and boy, if there was ever a year to put lights on and (laughing) use that to lift spirits, this is it.

#NAME? so there's really not much to do but to put our Christmas stuff up to help us all get through this.

#NAME? when you were on the call and I think you had a print of a cow behind you, with the ears of the cow positioned to look like they were your ears and I kept wanting to laugh but I didn't wanna say anything. - I'll move to the cow later. I have to move throughout the house because I'm trying to stay away from my kids 'cause my husband and I tested negative but we're pretty sure that the girls have it. So it's weird, it's a little challenging. At their ages we can't really isolate from them because they need us. - Yeah, ma'am. All right, well, fortitude. Okay, let's dive back in. So we're on Duty 4 and Scott you had wanted to say a little something about that.

#NAME? and to the chairs too. We saw the feedback that came through very clear about Duty 4 regarding consistency. I mean, we disclosed when we did it, that we we took a different approach and appreciated

13

everyone's willingness to hang with us as we presented it that way. Based upon the feedback, it's clear that the preference to have a more consistent format and fully respect that, the opinion of our group was summed up beautifully by Senator Wiklund that we are willing to make those consistency changes. So if it's all right with you, Judy, totally taking your cue as the author and the editor here, we are more than willing as a committee to reframe based on tonight's feedback, of course, reframe to have the consistent formatting so that in the next draft it's there so we can respect the time tonight to not spend our time formatting but getting actual edits to the content going forward and Senator Wiklund's already offered to work with us to frame that with you. So we would just throw that up front that declaring the format will be changed based upon your content tweaks tonight. Thank you.

#NAME? and thank you. I actually had in my notes to ask for a volunteer from this group to work with me on that. So perhaps we can be in touch after this meeting. - Yes, so if you say so, Senator Wiklund offered to and again, I don't wanna speak for the whole committee but you don't need nine editors either so whatever's best for you. (Judy laughing)

#NAME? All right, so with that, Jake, if you could pull the document up again and on the first page, if you can take us down to line 24. So I just wanted to point out in my wonderful color coding, I missed one. So lines 24 to 26 describe some of the existing models and lines 28 through 31 on our friendly edit from DHS to clarify just what it was that I was trying to talk about and didn't quite nail. So I'm gonna take that friendly edit and move forward but I just wanted you to know I had missed one. Moving on to page 18. So the big block of blue on the top of 18 is all about what Scott just was addressing in terms of formatting. So we'll take the gift of folks being willing to work on that and change it up and you'll see a revised version for December in terms of that. Move on to 4.1. So this is one I could go either way on. I had added in the words, authorize the development of A and some people said, "That's great," and DHS said, "Take it out," and it doesn't really matter one way or another. Perhaps I will defer to the work group to make the call on that, okay? Hearing no objections, let's move on to 4.2. So 4.2 is about, scroll down one more because I've got a comment at the top of the next page. There we go. So consistent orientation training. Kim says, "No. counties should be allowed to have their own orientation, not forced by DHS." And Cindy says, "The 'how to become a provider' on the DHS webpage is a start and should be included."

#NAME? I totally agree with Cindy's suggestion and that would get rid of my comment or concern. -

[Judy] Okay. - Because that is a DHS doc, 'how to become a provider' is a DHS document and I'm completely fine with that.

#NAME? there's any other comments I'm gonna move ahead to 4.3. -

[Lanay] This is Lanay. I just wanna throw in one thing that I agree that it's okay to have a consistent orientation developed by DHS as long as the counties can still have their own little piece of that and that we're not precluded from doing our own additional information beyond that DHS orientation.

#NAME? about county orientation is not precluded. Scott, go ahead. - Yeah, I'm sorry to cut you off Judy, Lanay and to the folks that have commented on this, no argument there. The impetus to what we're trying to get across is the running to catch up analogy that the most essential, most important things whether you're in Kittson County or Rochester or Laverne or in any corner or in any sound place the most consistent things will

14

always be there. If county X wants to do more, that's lovely but that no one's running to catch up to the essentials. So, appreciate everyone's feedback. - All right, so moving on to 4.3. So this was about the infrastructure needed to support family childcare mentors, coaches and consultants. Kim's question was, "I thought the mechanism for training, et cetera, is Develop, is that not true?" And Hollee had some concerns about, well, she supports it in concept, I would not support public funding for this. So, more thoughts. Kim and Hollee, do you wanna expand on that so we understand what your concerns are? So let me rewind this. Kim, the question is, is Develop the mech... Go ahead.

#NAME? and I really guess I know who I'm asking but Develop is the tool where is like the holding cell for all of the training and things like that now so I guess I don't... and maybe I'm confused with what I read there. The other part is in Hollee's thing, she talks about mentoring, coaching and consulting hours count for trainings. I think that... I guess I would have a question if that was the people being mentored or the mentors 'cause training is to enhance provider's knowledge and I think... so I would, if it's the people who are being mentored, I would agree with that. If it's the mentors, I would not. Same with being on a board, I don't think that being on a board fulfills the training requirements. But I guess, I don't know, the mechanism for training being developed. I'm not really sure who would answer that.

#NAME? and I'm not gonna say something I'm not qualified to talk about. So at the highest level, the ultimate goal of this is that mentors, coaches, consultants and association volunteers are critical to the childcare industry and to the ecosystem and how can we best support these people to do their thing ensuring that mentors and coaches get the right, you say it in air quotes compensation for what they're doing, not necessarily monetarily, maybe, maybe not that that conversation needs to happen but also should their hours in preparing or doing that work count toward the hours that they need to keep their credentialing and licensing going forward and that mechanisms and inputs are put in place to ensure associations can deliver the value and the resources that providers need. So to the level of detail, I'm not trying to disregard that 'cause it's critically important but like to Hollee's point, yes, if there's something mentors, coaches or consultants are doing, how can their hours do more than just flag it? So we talked a lot about the score system, we scored the entrepreneurship group and others out there. So can we authorize or force the conversation about ramping up? Well, Minnesota supports mentors, coaches, consultants and associations. And again, if we need that level of detail, I think our team's willing to go there but we kinda framed it more closer to 5,000 feet.

#NAME? If I can jump in, there's a lot of different things packed into this, both recommendation as well as the comments. I could speak to a couple of them. I mean, to your point, Kim, to an extent yes but there isn't quite the Develop is more for trainings and I wouldn't say we're where we wanna be in terms of having all the different options for coaching, mentoring and consulting in there in quite the same way, although others could speak to that maybe more than that even. I will say that one of the contracts we have, one of the things we do is a support for anyone who is a relationship-based professional development specialist out there. So whether you're a coach, a consultant or mentor there's a program we run that does training for those people on adult education, we do support, we do have a Facebook page. We have a convening. We try to give the folks that do that work across any curriculum out there or any association, just some general support. What I read when this was first presented was maybe more of a clearing house to say how do we make sure that family childcare providers connect with those coaches, mentors? So we're doing the part about making sure those coaches, mentors and whatever are the best they can be, but we don't for instance, do the part where we are a clearing

15

house if you will, of connecting them. Here happens through the individual mentorships or coaching programs, maybe a little through Develop. So what I heard this more as a clearing house or a bringing together and maybe beefing up that side of the game, if that helps. -

[Kim] That helps, thank you Ann. -

[Cindy] And Judy this is Cindy from DHS and I just wanted to comment to that. We do already have a process in place-

#NAME?

#NAME? Cindy is trying to answer one right now. Go ahead Cindy and if you could get a little closer to your mic 'cause you're pretty faint. -

[Cindy] Oh, okay. Can you hear me? -

[Judy] Yes, that's better. - I'm not sure what's going on with my mic, okay. Sorry, I was just saying that we do already have a process for approving coaching, consulting, mentoring through MNC PD and so we do need to add new criteria to approve independent mentors but this is something that we plan to work on. If they were approved for this mentoring, this mentoring could count for licensing. However, I think we have some concerns about being able to come on board, be on a board and that being approved by MNC PD.

#NAME? when you use the word Develop, is that referring to, and DHS can answer this. Is there a website on DHS there that is called Develop and it's there for the special purpose of coordinating training or information about training?

#NAME? our training system is called Develop. And so, yes, the name of system is Develop. -

[Mary] That clarifies, thank you.

#NAME? The only reason I put this comment in here is because I was trying to come up with alternatives for having to pay people to be mentors and consultants because honestly many of us have been doing this for free, for no benefit, tangible benefit for ourselves just knowing that we're helping our fellow providers and so I was just noting that instead of offering financial incentives to them because the wording said that a mechanism is needed to recognize individuals and these rules and allowing them to document their hours in a system and right now providers can do that but if you're a mentor to someone, it doesn't seem unless you're officially, you can't really document it. You don't earn anything, you don't put it in Develop necessarily, not everyone and so if what Cindy is... Yang is saying about developing a system so that to try and figure that out, that's fine with me and that's fine about the board members too. I was just thinking if this group was talking about ways to build up associations and if an association is able to offer mentoring and a lot of board members already do mentoring and I'm not saying this for my own benefit, I have no problem getting training hours but I'm just saying, if you're trying to build up associations, I'm fine taking this out. I was just trying to avoid having public funding for these things.

#NAME? and I hear you and I fully respect what you're saying. Again, the ultimate goal is how can the state of Minnesota better invest in mentors, coaches, consultants and associations to make them the best, most efficient

16

and coordinated they can be to keep doing their thing and respecting their time and forcing this type of conversation to happen, assuming this is adopted?

#NAME? conversation in mind, Scott and whoever else wants to volunteer from Work Group 4 maybe we can work on tightening up that language a little bit to reflect this. Does that sound like reasonable? -

[Scott] I think our crew would be glad to do that with you.

#NAME? Okay, so let's move on to 4.4, which is on business training and consultation. So I wanna point out, so there's three comments here. Judy, Hollee and Stephanie. Hollee's comment is repeated, you will notice for all the items 4.4 through 4.9. So it was a blanket comment and I just plunked it underneath each one so we wouldn't miss it somewhere and think it didn't apply, okay? So this is about business training and consultation. Judy says, "A lot of these trainings already exist. Do we need to note that here and an appendix, I hate to waste funding on things that are already available." Hollee, about not supporting additional public funding for these items. And Stephanie's saying these would require funding. Could be public or private. So again, those are the comments about the recommendation 4.4. So my question to you is are those acknowledgements that it would cost money? Where do you wanna head with this? Judy, Hollee, Stephanie any additional comments? -

[Judy] This is Judy. My comment was basically that we don't want to redo anything we already have and when we were talking about the one-stop shop, these are things that would be listed on the one-stop shop already because they already exist. So we don't need to repeat them.

#NAME? clarification of language that, something to do with filling the gaps on this training.

#NAME? A key theme throughout our Group 4 conversation was the tension between creating new things and increasing awareness of what's already there. So the point Judy's raising is timely and relevant to whether or not we could have an appendix or something but the concept of ensuring there's adequate awareness to avoid duplication certainly was a theme. And push back on me Group 4 if you think I'm overstating that, but that balance of awareness versus the right places to invest.

#NAME? (indistinct) investments to awareness and that would address my concerns. It would address Judy's about reinventing the wheel. And then I mean, just increasing awareness of existing zero trainings for every single one of these topics right now. - This is Ann, I'll speak up on behalf of my friends at First Children's Finance and others who do this. It is extremely difficult to do the coordinate training if we're gonna keep them as low cost as we all need to, to meet the provider community needs. Many of ours are free or they're $5 an hour. So if there's no infrastructure funding to cover at least some overhead and the marketing that you're talking about here, it's very difficult on a wide scale to do these kinds of trainings. So I guess I stand in support of some additional investment especially now as I think we're gonna be entering into a time when the business side is gonna get even trickier as the economy changes. So I guess I would not wanna see a recommendation that didn't talk at least about something about financial support to do this work. (indistinct)

#NAME? about the awareness, certainly awareness is a key element of this but the recommendation brought forth from our group did include the investments. -

17

[Stephanie] And this is Stephanie. Hold on, I'm sorry my camera's not on but I think that one thing I just wanna note is there are a lot of other industries that have investment in this area. Whether it's public or private, I do think that is worth a conversation, particularly coming into this next legislative session where we have a deficit and we may need to prioritize... and we're going to need to prioritize funding. So I just wanna echo Ann's point while my guest comes in. It costs money (indistinct).

#NAME? Okay, so again, I think I'm gonna refer this to Group 4. We'll finesse that language a little bit, recognizing that what I'm hearing is some investment may be needed and awareness certainly is an issue. Can we move on from there? - We'll gladly work with you on that, Judy. I think we can find a good solution here. - Great, next up was 4.5. Similar set of comments. So Judy asked, "What resources are available now with this help gain additional funding for those items instead of creating new?" Hollee's repeat on not supporting any public funding for these items. Her statement, "This is not necessary and leaves to much room for fraud. We've already had emergency funding, financing and grants." Programs for providers and Stephanie's saying these would require funding. So again, this was funding for forgivable loans, micro loans, grants and guarantees for family childcare providers, including the potential for more expensive investments such as home remodeling. In addition to evaluating existing public finance programs for potential policy and eligibility modifications which can better support family childcare entrepreneurs. So with those concerns in mind and given what people have raised, do you feel the need to change that language at all or should it stay the same? Get a few minutes of comments about this and then we're gonna move on. - I'm very concerned about the potential for fraud. The words, expensive investments such as home remodeling really concerned me because most people don't need to remodel their home completely to be able to offer family childcare. And so there's other many, I think we just need to highlight the existing programs and emergency funding for... you mentioned First Children's Finance before. That is a good organization that helps, there's others too and highlighting those, the regional grants or other things that providers can use to update their home to add health and safety, to meet those health and safety standards and whatnot. But when you say more expensive investments for things like home remodeling, it really concerns me because are those really necessary for providers to be able to care for children?

#NAME? should be put into the... needs more work category of the group. -

[Judy] Yep.

#NAME? I agree with that. I can speak to being in a more rural community. I know that that is a barrier for a lot of childcare providers in our community, not having houses that meet the standards that they quite need to and not having access to be able to improve that or the means to improve that. That's where we are, I think that 87 other... we're number one out of 87 counties for poverty (laughing). So just coming from that angle, I guess. (indistinct)

#NAME? So again, Scott, I'm gonna lean on you and the group. We'll see if we can tweak that a little bit but recognize that that need is not the same across all of the state and there are some areas where that is an issue. - I would echo sort of Judy's questions along with these is, I guess from my perspective, I don't know what exists now in terms of these loan programs and so it would be, obviously it would have been helpful to have that information before we got to this point in the process but if there is a way to get some of that information so that that's when we look at, are they kind of getting everything ready for the final report, I think it would be helpful to have a base understanding of what the state does now in terms of the public funding that's available

18

and maybe if there's other sort of private or non-profit sources even if it's just the high-level overview so we have an idea where there might be some holes and maybe we can be more specific. -

[Ann] I think that's a really good idea, Ami.

#NAME? and I believe we had one of our staff members, Michelle Leonhart who was the subject matter expert on this work group. So she can work with Scott on this. -

[Scott] Thank you.

#NAME? All right, moving on to teach and retain and yes, teach and retain. So recommendation is provide better marketing and communication and more funding for teach scholarships and retain bonuses. Hollee, you're the one who had comments here about no additional public funding. They don't need more money though more marketing and communication about them could be improved.

#NAME? when I say marketing and communication I don't mean at a cost. Social media, you can do so much with. The Children's Cabinet's done a really good job about getting information out to providers, childcare where it seems to have ramped it up more this year too and I think that's been really helpful. So I think there's still many providers who aren't aware of these programs or who don't know much about 'em. So either offering trainings and whatnot, but at some point is this really helping to retain a significant number of providers? Is this really keeping more in the field if you're not addressing the root problems, root causes of the majority of providers leaving?

#NAME? where I am gonna ask for a show of hands on the language as it stands 'cause I think it is a philosophical stance on whether or not there should be money, funding provided. And so, I would like to ask you if you're not on--

#NAME? since I carried some legislation that actually would have provided more funding for retain grants and they actually do need more funding. They always have a lot more applicants for those grants than they have money available. So at least with that specific program I do think that more funding would be helpful to keeping providers in the field.

#NAME? isn't in lieu of fixing other issues that face family childcare providers. It's just one aspect of trying to support them as I understand it. So those of you in favor of leaving the recommendation 4.6 as it's written, please raise your hands. We've got a pretty clear majority so we will leave as is. All right, and then onto 4.7, training education pathways. This is about providing high school and higher education pathways to train in credential future family care providers and encourage qualified existing providers to stay in the field. Cindy had, including CDA and NFCC accreditation. Hollee's concerned about no additional public funding. Hollee's observation about family childcare credential for existing providers didn't have many participants 10 years ago, support highlighting high school and continuing ed programs for early childhood and childcare careers. And those were the comments. So any further thoughts on this? - This is Erin, I guess I'm just looking for a little bit more clarification in Bemidji. We have the Bemidji career academies and they're doing this through the school. So is this asking them that the school would have more funding available to them, even though it's a program or a pathway they're already offering? - It's not offered everywhere, so go ahead.

19

#NAME? - Yeah, what you're describing is a good example of that. Trying to build actually a pathway to a CDA in the high schools through that FACT program. But my understanding is it's not everywhere so that would be one example of where this could go along with support for. We've actually seen a pretty good uptake in people wanting to pursue a CDA from all sorts of aspects of the field. So Cindy's point about the CDA, I know less about where we're at with NAFTEC or NFCC accreditation (indistinct). It would be those types of programs as I understand it. -

[Judy] Okay.

#NAME? and a big part of this would be a conversation with those colleges and university systems about the business of childcare as a module in the early childhood certificates. There's some things too. So just how can the education system ensure an adequate supply of providers and/or retention and recruitment. So yes, a great example. -

[Erin] Thank you.

#NAME? instead of saying pride, maybe something like expanding because we know that there are already...

#NAME? - That's Ami and she froze up. So hopefully she can rejoin us, Erin. -

[Erin] Yeah, I would definitely make that clarification. - Okay, we're getting some funky echo so whoever is managing the sound, see if we can address that. Hopefully we can get Ami back on the line but all right, so we have a suggestion from Ami to change... go ahead.

#NAME? that for tech colleges and programs that offer early childhood programs, they have seen over the past four years a sharp decline in the number of people who participate. So I think it's important to highlight those (indistinct) programs. They don't need to be expanded. I know here at Wright Tech Center, for example we just had a report two weeks ago about their programs and in early childhood every time, I'm really sad to see how much it drops each year. So just highlighting those existing programs is really important. You don't wanna expand upon ones that are already struggling that aren't, because it's about highlighting what we already have. - Right, so I'm gonna suggest we probably have enough material for whoever's volunteering from this work group to help me revise this, is that okay? -

[Scott] Sure.

#NAME? Then 4.8 is the shared services pilots and Hollee, the concerns on this one were yours again about no additional public funding and concerned that this seems to be different than family childcare. So as I recall from the presentation, this was about family childcare providers who might have some shared service economy of scale stuff. Now, I don't recall what the exact examples were. It seemed there was perhaps some joint purchasing and things like that. So from the work group, do you wanna respond to Hollee's concern about how it's different than family childcare?

#NAME? There was one thing that I was taking a look at when we were talking about this, that when they're talking about shared services that there would be like a central person that would do our paperwork and stuff and I said, well that can't work because we can't give out that information. There's legal problems with that. And then they were talking about maybe buying a lot of things together so that you can get a better price on stuff.

20

And when you really look at that, if say you have 50 providers across the state that wanna purchase something and if we buy it in bulk we get it for a cheaper price, I understand that but what about logistics here? How do we get those products to those 50 different people who pays for it upfront? How do we pay for it? I'm again kind of going back on, how does this actually work for family childcare when we're so far apart from each other? I don't know. I have some questions, it's confusing. I mean, it would be great if something like this can work but I'm having a hard time again seeing the application for family childcare.

#NAME? that put this together with the purpose of the pilot, be to see just exactly how it might work and sort of answer Judy's questions by testing this concept. Is that what you had in mind? - I was in the group, Judy (laughing). -

[Judy] Oh, sorry. I've lost track of who was where.

#NAME? when I think about it but then the logistics when I think about it so I kind of flip flop back and forth and I'm sorry about that. -

[Stephanie] This is Stephanie. One thing I wanna to note is there are, and maybe Scott can speak better to this, but there are existing shared services pilot that my understanding have been successful for family childcare providers and I would wanna, maybe there's language that could be added to clarify like we would want the shared services pilot to address the needs of family childcare to actually reduce costs and streamline services and resources, something to that effect. We would want it to add value, of course and I think there are models that have worked in Minnesota on smaller scales and I think across the country that could be modeled after as well. But I think the points are well taken that you would want it to add value and not take away or be something providers have to participate in or don't work for them.

#NAME? and Judy, this is Scott. The ultimate goal here is the creativity and entrepreneurship and innovation of providers. How can we create a mechanism where either the effective or excellent models that are in place already or that could be birthed through collaboration, how do we support those and create a mechanism or an investment or a way for them to come to life? If as Judy said, they can add value and they can buy down costs and just make it more effective and sustainable providers to come together that the state's not gonna say, come up with a way to best buy XYZ item that propose your best way to make this industry more sustainable and to solve the problem. So it is really trying to harness what's in the head of providers, either doing it today or ready to go tomorrow. -

[Judy] So again, I'm gonna refer this back to our work group rethinking, rewording because there's a piece of this about sharing the learnings from the existing pilots and programs that do this, sharing information and piloting things. So there's some concepts there that could be perhaps worked into this. Okay, so let's move on to 4.9. So this is training for family childcare service providers. So these are people who provide services to family childcare providers, okay? So tax preparers, business advisors, insurers, et cetera and Judy asked, do we list resources already available? Hollee's concern again about additional public funding. So I don't know if the work group had some examples that we could incorporate and wouldn't necessarily in the language of the recommendation but is there a strong sense that you need to change the language in the recommendation? So hearing none, I'm going to assume the language in 4.9 is fine and if in our conversations, Group 4 there's anything we can add to illustrate this, we can add that in. And then below there's a block with a green and a

21

blue item. I'm gonna take the blue first 'cause that's easy. Kelly was saying with both of the blue highlights the suggestions for legislation, she was thumbs up. So that's great. And then Kim, main question throughout this duty is why there needs to be legislation for training and would it be required of new providers? Did you have something in specific in mind, Kim on that or is it just sort of a general reaction? Can you expound on that?

#NAME? kind of to Judy's point too is that a lot of these trainings are available and a lot of these things are already out there and I didn't know if that was gonna... you know how there are certain trainings that are required of providers. I didn't know if these were going to be and then that would tie into legislation and I guess I wouldn't want that to be. I mean, I would want it all to be there and obviously for providers to have access to the information. I just didn't understand if it was going to be forced upon them.

#NAME? clarify any of that for you or are you still wondering? -

[Kim] Yeah, it seems a little more voluntary than what I was wondering.

#NAME? All right, we're gonna move on to Duty 5. And, this is where I think I'm going to set us a time limit and we're gonna dive in as much as we can and resolve as much as we can on these four pages in about 20 minutes and then we're gonna stop because we may not be done and we're gonna make sure we get the rest of the duties covered tonight. That does not mean that this will be our last conversation of these but as I was reading through your comments, first of all is the blue item at the top, Senator Kiffmeyer's observation at four and five should be done like the others, way too much language. So I may need to have a volunteer from Group 5 to help with some rewriting, lest to be forced to get just my words on that page. So remind me before we're done to secure the services of somebody from Group 5 to help with rewrites, okay? But I wanna make an observation about the comments throughout. There seems to be the fundamental understanding of what's being asked for in Duty 5 is different. Some of the comments refer to this is not appropriate for family childcare. You're talking about something other than family childcare. Why are we talking about things other than family childcare? The flip side of it is people saying, but it asks for alternative childcare delivery systems. This is, for me... that's the divide, is the legislative language that set up this task force said develop recommendations for alternative childcare delivery systems. That could be more financially viable in smaller communities with unmatched childcare capacity needs in greater Minnesota which could include new licensure models for large group family childcare or small capacity childcare centers. So that seems to me again, the least informed person in the room but I'm reading things with that fresh set of eyes that this is the challenge of between our current family childcare model and our current center model. Are there things in between or extensions of those two that would meet those needs in those underserved challenged areas of the state? So with all due grace for each other, let's walk through this, understanding that I believe the work group was responding to the duty as written and some of the responses come from, but this is the family childcare task force and we should be focused on that. So that seems to be the rub as the potential for disagreement that's set up by the language in the legislation and yeah, enough said. I've expounded enough. So let's be kind to each other but let's walk through these because I think we need to get to some resolution somehow and it may or may not be possible tonight. So in the first green block, you can scroll up just a little bit, Jake, thank you. So Cindy had a proposed edit at that point saying edit and add, order providing care for children in their primary home in which the license holder is the primary provider of care. The license implies in our own home but many providers have homeless disabilities outside their home and yet are under this license. So reword for a home setting and not the primary or include

22

additional setting wording. So are you saying this just needs to reflect the current statute better than what has been articulated here? -

[Cindy] Yes. -

[Judy] Okay, so that one just says articulate- -

[Cynthia] The statute says nothing about (indistinct).

#NAME? Got it, okay. So I'll make that consistent and I'll actually turn that into a blue edit, got it. So moving down and we have a similar one. Ann, you had a correction for lines 25 and 26 and 27 because I was trying to reference something and it was not clear and it was trying to get at that food program thing, yeah.

#NAME? explain what I was trying to say? I don't know that I did it very well. On that last sentence, it isn't necessarily that it's a requirement of the facility. So your example is of note with these models is the possibility of other regulations, for instance the food program, not required by childcare statutes but required by the facility and really the issue with CACFP has to do with the whole idea as I've understood and others may know better. This was new to me that they apparently won't accept or there's some issue with special family childcare meeting the needs of the CACFP program. So I just wasn't sure if that was, it isn't just about the facility.

#NAME? I think I know where you were going with that and I'm familiar enough with the CACFP program from some other weird involvement in another state. So yeah. (Ann laughing) Got it, we'll add it. That's a blue one. All right, and then I was trying to summarize some of what duty Group 5 had talked about in lines 34 through 36. And Judy and Hollee had some concerns about the way that was written. My suggestion is that I work with someone from Group 5, so be thinking amongst yourselves who that's gonna be to reword lines 34 through 36 or delete them but it was about financial challenges and I didn't capture it in a way that works. So, are you all right with that? Good, yes? Hearing no responses, I'm moving forward.

#NAME? I would still like to find out from Group 5 if there's anything they'd like to say instead or much more clearly than mine. So either there's a Group 5 rewrite or we take it out, got it?

#NAME? of taking it out entirely, if we can clear if just there are economic challenges with the (indistinct).

#NAME? I think the concern (indistinct). Why would you (indistinct). Go ahead. -

[Ami] I think that-

#NAME? Can you try that again?

#NAME? of the traditional model, I think that having a discussion about alternative delivery models. So I think at least leaving the first part of that sentence to acknowledge that there are economic challenges. That's the reason why we're looking at this, whether we have to detail them or not. I think it's important to acknowledge that. That's why we have... that's why providers are looking for other delivery models because it doesn't always work to use the traditional model in your home childcare. - And I would expand on that too, Ami, is that we're looking for the more rural areas of Minnesota. So if we can somehow incorporate that in here, I would like to

23

edit rather than take that out. - If you look Erin, that's right under Judy and Hollee's comments, there's a comment about Metro area. I think those could be put together somehow. -

[Erin] Yeah.

#NAME? I'm concerned that we leave in a statement that has no foundation that I know of that it's higher rates for care. We have a comment from Judy, a provider commenting on, that family childcare is the most affordable option of childcare. Rates are not set on what parents are willing to pay, they're based on many factors. So I just want to be very careful. We make very definitive kinds of statements that may not be justified here when we have disagreement.

#NAME? on some revised wording and also connect with Group 5 to see what was behind their conversation there so that it can be an accurate statement and reflect some of those challenges. Okay, and then moving along. So we're in the middle of page 23 and the bullet points that are there starting on line 23 where these were the key discussion points out of the presentation from duty Group 5. So that second bullet, alternative childcare delivery models should not always be labeled family childcare even when smaller groups that can offer an option between licensed family and center-based care. So it was that dichotomy I was talking about before. Judy suggests, "Change, not always to never." Hollee says, I would remove the word always from that line." Then talks about emphasizing family childcare. The easy edit that I think gets at that issue is to say, alternative childcare delivery models should not be labeled family childcare but I want to make sure that that's consistent with the discussion of duty Group 5 before I strike that word. Group 5, got any opinions on that?

#NAME? but I know that this was a long discussion within our group school. We couldn't come up with a name to call it (chuckling) and some of these models that we were talking about were larger group. Family childcare, we understand that that's not what we should be calling that. So I think we would be open to that change, I guess. I don't speak for the rest of the group.

#NAME? and I was participating as the DHS rep on the work group and what I think has kind of lurked in that conversation and likely through some of these conversations is that there is this particular statute that acknowledges what we call the special family childcare, right? And so in statute 2458.14, subdivision four it lists out and has grown legislatively over the years to address newer scenarios and options. And it's premised upon the standards of Rule 2 for family childcare and it's got the same limitations in all. And so, I do think lurking in here is... is this a time to say, and I think Cindy Cunningham's comments earlier up above about how to talk about residing in the provider's own home that primary caregiver is kind of a definition in the rule. So we're like everybody, we're mixing all these various ways in which the phrases come to us. But I do think that somehow maybe, that's a recommendation or an idea, right? That is to kind of talk about that sort of traditional in the provider's own home. But clearly we have all of these other venues and over 80 to 90 licenses, at least, right? Where people are doing it in something other than their own home. Either they rent a home, it's a house they've inherited, they have access to. So I guess, we should be thoughtful when we kind of try to maybe build into something that is smaller and isn't truly that in your own home, the provider often has their own children. So I think we did, as Erin said, acknowledge this and maybe there's an underlying recommendation about kind of talking about models outside of the provider's own home or something. Maybe it's even more as some others here have said. - This is Liz- -

24

[Judy] Okay, so... Yes, Liz.

#NAME? understand for in-home, there's always going to be that need for in-home. As we look at younger generations that are coming up and that's both providers that we're trying to recruit that are younger and also families, they want another option and they really want, especially to make it feel even more like a business is to have that separate location for that provider. I think can be maybe phrased differently and I've been trying not to involve you but I know Ann kind of defined family childcare in a way that made sense to me at the last, well, when we presented this to the task force. -

[Judy] Okay, so- - Sorry, Ann (laughing). But I mean, family childcare I get where it's defined, where it's in the provider's home but I think there needs to be something more now. - Okay, so I'm understanding, I think what the gist of that sentence is and where the upset is. So I may tap a couple of you individually to help me think through how to rework this.

#NAME? I think what I said addresses these concerns too. I did it very respectfully. I included people who do childcare, whether it's their own home or apartment. I said home, I didn't say house and where people traditionally live, whether it's something they rent or whatnot but I think this speaks to a greater issue. When you use the term family childcare and then you apply it to small centers or to churches or to other places that are not technically family childcare, they're more like whether you call it a small center or something, this isn't the long standing issue that really needs to be addressed. They can still follow Rule 2 or make up less stringent Rule 3 standards for these alternative care models. But just to make sure that family childcare is something very very different and you can still add small centers or other alternatives, but that the name family childcare is what I'm concerned about.

#NAME? is as we try to recruit people to the field is that there are young people that are not married and they don't have children and they don't have a family but they want to be a provider. So if you have something that is like family childcare, that might steer them away and they may not think that they can even do that because they don't have a family. - So Liz and Hollee, I'll be in touch. Put it on your heads-up lists that you'll be getting a call. All right, and then the last bullet on the page was acquiring and affording usable properties and spaces for alternative childcare models is challenging and requires community investment. Hollee's observation was the investment should only be done privately and you have a couple other points there. Kim, does not fit into family childcare or daycare center rules and statutes, need separate rules and statutes. Has there been a survey done? Erin says, make a clear distinction between an actual family home versus a program outside of a person's home. So sounds like we have some of the same concerns there. Is the concern about investment or that word community or is it just about the definition of family childcare and when we're using that term and when we aren't, which is where I think the issue resides?

#NAME? to the comment Erin made on the last one because I was involved in Group 5 too about the amount of conversation that went on. Thinking about, again, I'm not a provider, I'm not in that space but out in the communities in our region and Erin would know that in her area too. Small communities are looking at, can we match people with non-traditional real estate to create childcare opportunities whether that's houses of worship whether that's commercial buildings, other things. And as I think about the two lenses and where I think we're colliding here, everybody here, all of you childcare professionals live and breathe this stuff and Rule 2, Rule 3 is the statutes and everything. And I think too, Jane citizen, Joe citizen, city council member, the chamber

25

director, they're in a very different place. If an entrepreneur is licensed to have 12 kids in a room, in a church, the terminology that's there is not statutory, it's here's another childcare operation. And I do, I see the tension every day on the terminology and how people throw the words around. So for what it's worth, how do we foster meaningful conversations, especially in the most rural areas where we can dream big and be differently about, does it make sense to match a childcare provider, an entrepreneur, somebody who wants to do what our kids need with non-traditional real estate without contaminating the core in-home family childcare industry that's so critical to Minnesota. And I think those tensions are there because if we have 12 random community members in this conversation, it would be a very different tone. - Okay, so- - Just to be clear, my comment, I think when you did the green part, you took bullet points that were actually part of like lines 47, 48, like it was actually nothing that I was talking about. I was only talking about lines 45 to 46. The investment should only be done privately and that was my only comment. I just wanna make it clear. I understand encouraging community investment and that's fine. I just, again, do not support public investment. I'm all about, there's so many wonderful private ways to do that in pulling those resources. - Got it and I've scribbled out the things I must have inadvertently added. Sorry about that. Okay so again, these bullet points were simply reflecting what the work group had talked about. Now, we get to dive into the recommendations. And again, I wanna just spend a few minutes. If we can revolve things tonight, that's great and if not, we will park things until December so we can get through the rest of the report as well. So the next, scroll down Jake. So we have the recommendation for legislative action and 5.1 is authorizing DHS to develop a pilot program with your original language there on page 24 and then on page 25, we have some concerns about that as well as some suggested alternative language. So again, this is where I saw the divide happening about what is Duty 5's assignment. So, Cindy, you had some suggestions for develop a pilot program for alternative delivery models for licensed family childcare and I don't know if that's a limitation that duty Group 5 put on this. Judy has some concerns about the authority given to DHS. Hollee, not to give this to DHS, legislature and groups can work on it. Franchising is not family childcare, it's center-based and it really takes away from the heart of our programs. We don't need more reports and fundings on things that are not necessary. So those were kind of a reactions to the general direction that this is going. The DHS language, which was separately brought into this is a clarification of the language that says, authorize DHS to develop a pilot program, recommend legislation that provides DHS authority to develop a process for models of alternative childcare delivery models, not fully permissible under existing statute and rule that protect child health and safety and provide more financial viability with a focus on smaller communities in greater Minnesota that have unmapped childcare capacity needs, require a report from DHS to provide an evaluation of the ideas generated and implemented in order to inform recommendations to create alternative childcare delivery models by changing the statutes governing childcare, licensing and regulation. Authority to approve these ideas could be time limited. However, the programs should continue to remain licensed through an evaluation process that incorporates existing licensing requirements and the evaluation criteria above. So again, I think this page illustrates sort of the philosophical approaches. One is how do we handle this gap in childcare that exists in certain communities in Minnesota and the other is about the nature of family childcare. So a few minutes for comments and we'll see if we can go anywhere with this page. Mary, you're muted. -

[Judy] This is Judy. Can you hear me?

#NAME? Now I just completely lost my train of thought here, hold on. When they're talking about allowing these different types of programs to be licensed and then continue to be licensed until maybe it becomes law, how do we do that? If it doesn't become law, what do we do with all of these programs and these kids that are in these

26

programs at the end of it? That's a concern there. And like I stated before, when we say I guess I don't know how I'm trying to say it but I just, it seems like a real scary thing to get into where we go ahead and we develop these programs. We decide if they work, we go to lawmakers. They say, no. What do we do with all of these programs, all of these kids at that point?

#NAME? Yep, this is Reggie. I think Judy, in response to that I think some of that conversation was in some way talked about as part of work Group 5 and I think the whole point I think in here, the language about a pilot is by nature. That's exactly what the work group talked about was the need to be both sort of experimental and creating some flexibility if you don't really know what you need but to keep it very very narrow and measured. And so there are, in other areas, both within DHS and I'm sure across tons of agencies and others where pilots get funded for that very reason. They could be time limited. They're limited to a geographical area. They're limited to a number of programs and there could be an understanding that at the end of X years, these go away or at the end of X years, if this isn't continued on, then they have to be transitioned over. So I mean, I think those are very legitimate issues or questions. I think that they're also ones that are kind of built into it and I do think that the group was very clear that to try and figure out what some brand new rule or something might be is a huge undertaking but to try and take what are some programs that right now sometimes DHS, the county licensors see these in various places across the state, people coming to them saying, I'd like to do X, and even under whatever that flexibility is for quote, "special family childcare now," we still couldn't say yes to it. So I'm just saying the whole point of a pilot is to keep it as contained and for the very reasons that you brought out and that's why I think this recommendation came forward as a pilot. - And I'll just echo what Reggie had said, this is Erin that there's always the default going back to an actual in-home family childcare or if you wanna reword what the special family childcare is or expand to a center. I mean, there has to be some sort of... so these children have somewhere to go afterwards. Actually that's my point. As long as that provider understands that that's what they need to do if this pilot doesn't work. (indistinct)

#NAME? - Pilots in here somewhere, so that there's an understanding this is a pilot program because the way this is worded now, it's basically to recommend this legislation to authorize and develop these new alternatives but it doesn't say it's a pilot. I think maybe in the language-

#NAME? that it's a pilot program in the first sentence. This gives DHS carte blanche authority to do this and that is not how normal pilot programs are set up. The Music Rocks program in St. Paul, for example give very clear instructions. When they form a pilot program it doesn't say, Here's a bunch of money and come up with some ideas to do that." It says, "Okay, work on developing a pilot program that would use these types of buildings so that would allow these two providers to work together in a sharing space." It would give more specifics. I have such huge concerns with this and this is really gonna hurt providers and the thought of using the word franchise with family childcare honestly offends me and it's gonna offend too many providers. I think its... I'm very disappointed in that. We weren't given time to discuss this before, 10 minutes wasn't enough for everyone to say what they wanted to say but I would ask that this be removed honestly, the authority for DHS this is something that should be left up to the legislature and ask the legislature to look into this and they can specify types of programs. - Judy I'd like to comment too, Judy? Thank you, first of all, I just wanna clarify there's a bold statement in the beginning that conveys something that I think is not really good to do. It's just like a bold statement authorize DHS and then it goes on to recommend legislative action providing DHS authority to develop a process and so those two are conflicting with one another. I think it's gonna seek legislation, you seek

27

legislation. In my experience with pilots is yes, they are quite well defined. They have a goal and a purpose. They have parameters by which the pilot functions, it does not carp launch, never has a pilot, then just go out and come up with some ideas That is not the way legislature does pilots but I think that initial bolded words and then afterwards this is a legislative recommendation that the legislature should consider doing this. Yes, be fair enough.

#NAME? yes, so the bolded statement was an addition that I was proposing and clearly it did not hit the mark and so we can take that bolded statement out. My question to you because Senator Kiffmeyer in particular as you look at the original language, which starts after the bolded statement on line 18 of page 24 and then there's a potential revised language on page 25 line 19 again, after the bolded statement which I have marked out in red pen on my copy and that says recommend legislation. So it starts with the actual recommendation for legislation to establish something. Now obviously there's a lot of details that would go into what that would look like but does that address your concern, Senator?

#NAME? just to let you know, anytime it comes to legislation, you're gonna have to have a bill draft and the bill draft in process will require much greater detail. It would be better, I believe if you're gonna do this for the legislature to consider a pilot because it all depends (chuckling). So the pilot language is written. One thing I just wanna remind everybody. We're gonna be very much in deficit, so the idea that we're just gonna give DHS some more money to do this additionals new way of doing things even a pilot is a real concern. We've been cautioned by all of our leaders to not plan to spend any new money. So that's kind of an issue but you can do pilots without using government money. I think the pilot can come up with ideas on how to do that but to think we're gonna get funding to do this sort of stuff, I don't think is very realistic at all. -

[Ami] And I will jump in here next. -

[Judy] Go ahead. - Recommended in red, isn't a pilot program so I think from my reading in the language, it's coming up with ideas, it's alternative, it's coming up with ideas and then that would, it's hard to put everything together. A report that would (indistinct), some of these things look like. So I guess that's sort of what I'm seeing. I think the language of pilot program is what's throwing people off here. I don't think the changes that were made with the recommendation language recommendations from DHS are saying it's a pilot program 'cause a pilot program in my mind is you have an idea and you're testing it to see if it works so that you can do it in other places. That's what I think the pilot (indistinct). These changes to the language make it sound like it's just figuring out what sort of ideas that might (indistinct) and the report that says, here are the ideas that might work and then from there it would be implementing the idea. So that's what I'm seeing. I don't know if folks wanna chime in, but that's sort of, I think the pilot program language is throwing people off. If that was taken out of there, I think language that's in the red would make a little more sense 'cause it's not really one program, it's sort of getting ideas for how we would do this.

#NAME? and one of the things that we discussed was that and Reggie might be able to chime in, but there are instances, quite a few instances where they had to say no to something but it wasn't necessarily a no for a bad reason, it's just they had to say no. And if they went back and were creative about being able to be flexible in some respects, you could say yes and what does that look like? What are their circumstances? How could there be a more... how could they have some flexibility to get to yes? In some of these ways that still kept in the spirit of the law, but maybe it wasn't the technical letter of the law. And then being able to report back because of the

28

concerns about business models being dictated by legislation and then thus being in this situation moving forward about business models that aren't viable or successful or replicable or things like that. So the idea was to kind of be that node between innovation and safety standards and other things like that and having the people who are deeply involved in this to be able to get to yes in a way without being constricted. And it's not carte blanche to just come up with totally random new stuff, but maybe, but as long as... Just a minute. And so that was kind of the impetus behind... If Reggie has the ability to share maybe some of those things, she had some of them already to be maybe more demonstrative (indistinct) than perhaps some of the fears that people are thinking in their head, what was suggested- (indistinct) -

[Ariane] This is Ariane and I was-- -

[Judy] Go ahead, Ariane.

#NAME? talking about different models and why we wanted to leave it more open ended is we didn't wanna tie our hands because we had people from all over the state on this and the different needs in each area of the state would not be completely the same. So we were looking to more of pilot models where people brought their ideas to DHS to see would they allow that to try and ultimately it's DHS' neck that's gonna be on the line for this because if something goes awry, they're gonna have to come back to the legislature to answer to them.

#NAME? also on the working group and that's our whole thing is that if you want to start a new model, you need DHS to tell you what you can and cannot do underneath that new model. It's not that we're trying to give DHS authority to go up and start setting up houses or separate places and employing people at these places. It's if you have somebody that wants to buy a separate house or a separate space and they just wanna have, even if it's let's say 16 kids. If they want to increase the number of their capacity, DHS has to be able to tell us if that can or cannot happen. And so I think I don't want to get hung up on the words like authorize DHS or even that we're spending public funding. A lot of these communities, what came out of this working group, a lot of these communities have money that they want to invest in a pilot program like this. But we just have to put DHS because at the end of the day you wanna try to open up something that's going to serve families and with the need that is going on in greater Minnesota, you want to kinda figure out a model that is going to help with that. So that's what came out of that working group. Not that we're all just going to be DHS houses and if DHS increases the capacity again, like Ariane said, they're not gonna be on the line. Does that help?

#NAME? fundamentally though, it is the legislature that authorizes that sort of work. You're talking about almost a legislative function within DHS. If they would be able to go beyond what statute allows and that's why the language in here is to include the legislature to allow them to do that. That's like a blank check. It says, "You're responsible." And yet you don't really have that level of authority. The better way Liz to do, I appreciate Ariane and all these folks saying this, come up with the ideas and then come to the legislature and let's get some legislation passed that would authorize specifically those either as a pilot or as a change in statute. The nice thing about a pilot is when it's authorized by the legislature, then you're able to supersede some of the current rules that are in place for the purpose of that pilot and the legislature has done that. So it's like you're thinking the only way to do this is through DHS, for them to step out, still according to this line which are gonna need legislative authority to do that. Why not just go to the legislature with ideas for those pilots? And the main thing here is not so much the money, if you're saying that, I appreciate that. That's really good to hear but the authority to do something different other than like the rule or statute currently allows. -

29

[Judy] Yes (laughing). - Yeah, that sounds-- (indistinct)

#NAME? but remove, recommend legislation and then strike the words that say that provide DHS authority. Just leave it, recommend legislation, develop a process and only keep the first paragraph in there. And that would address the concerns about DHS. It would still allow a... and maybe to develop a pilot process or something, process for pilot models. And then that would address the concerns, it would keep legislative authority with the legislature and it wouldn't offer all these other details and then you wouldn't have the cost at the moment and then you might not even need a report. I mean, if you wanna include the report but I'd be curious about the cost of that report. - I think the main thing here is that-

#NAME? that providers, local governments, a variety of entities come up with ideas for pilots to present to the legislature.

#NAME? a page full of notes in five different colors, some with names attached and so let me take this one offline and see what we can do with it to come back to you with revised language and again, if there's anyone from Group 5 that would like to work with me on that, that would be wonderful, lest to be dependent on my judgment which is a little scary. All right-- I'm sorry (indistinct) I would like Judy... this touches more a little bit more legislation. So maybe run it by Ami Wazlawik and myself.

#NAME? another person saying?

#NAME? (indistinct) Arianne? -

[Arianne] Yep. - Okay, Liz and Arianne, was there anybody else? -

[Liz] Stephanie.

#NAME? Great, you can all expect a call or email blast. That'd be great. All right, 5.2, providing financial supports, tax credits or bonds to support communities and businesses and it has to do with properties for childcare facilities. Hollee's point is it should be done privately and without public funds. And this is a recommendation for legislative action. Any strong feelings from the group about-

#NAME? that we shouldn't be using public funds especially when it comes to bonding. We actually had legislation that would have provided, I think it was 20 million. So half of it from I think bonds and half from the general fund to help with this exact thing and I think when we think about, particularly in greater Minnesota where we don't even necessarily have the facilities to be able to have these childcare models and we talk about these alternative models, whether that's a pod model, I think it does make sense to at least have the option to at least say that we think that there should be some sort of public funding, whether that's bonding or some other way of doing it. I think it is important that we invest in facilities for childcare particularly in greater Minnesota.

#NAME? you publicly subsidize a program like a center or one of these alternative ones that you could actually be unintentionally putting family childcare businesses out of business, because you can't, just like with universal preschool, family childcare providers are going out of business because they can't compete with the allure of so-called free care. And so when you have one of these buildings, these programs that are publicly funded, the

30

family childcare programs are not and so you're competing with those and could be causing them to go out of business.

#NAME? it gets totally (indistinct) public sector because there's not enough capacity across the state and that's the only way to ensure that capacity is available is to put it into the preschool thing that's offered in every community for every child. So I think some level of public-private partnership is clearly demonstrated to be necessary across the childcare sector as evidenced by the investment today.

#NAME? and I wanna agree with representative Wazlawik that the communities that we hear talking about this have such a shortage that the marketplace doesn't even have space for competition because it's so inadequate. -

[Judy] This is Judy. One thing I want to... you keep talking about this childcare shortage and then we hear about putting kids into universal pre-K is the alternative. The shortage isn't for the three and four-year-olds. The childcare shortage is for those infants and those toddlers and so this threat and I'm sorry, I feel like it's a threat when it keeps getting thrown out there. Well, we're just gonna put everybody in universal pre-K. When I see the government funding these programs, that's the same thing that I see. We're just putting them in these programs and the government's gonna fund it and it's gonna be okay and if we don't agree with that, well, then we're just gonna put more kids in a universal pre-K. And I'm sorry, but personally, I find that insulting because universal pre-K has been a major downfall to childcare, for family childcare and even centers are having a problem and it's totally inappropriate for small children. I needed to say that.

#NAME? I wanna pull the conversation back to 5.2 which is about purchasing, renovating or constructing properties for childcare facilities. Now what I'm hearing is this is about those areas of the state where childcare simply is not available or there's a big gap. So there seems to be something there about filling that gap. This isn't necessarily about universal pre-K, but I understand that's another big conversation in the childcare world. I've been hearing about that. So I'm gonna suggest that, again, if I can lean on a couple of volunteers and Liz and Ariane and Stephanie, if you could, can I lean on you to help me finesse the words on 5.2 to get at that gap in certain areas of the state? Okay, thank you. - Judy, I wanna add some information here, just to remind everybody that every city, every township and every county can do bonding for local needs. Just to let them know that's an option for them, any private sector can do things. There are a lot of local options to do this. This doesn't just have to happen at the state level or through the government even. -

[Judy] Sure, got it.

#NAME? 5.2 is one of the areas that when we talked about it in four, where there's potential for inadvertent overlap, we'd wanna make sure if 5.2 is tweaked to that, it compliments or aligns with some of the financial mechanisms talked about in four 'cause conceptually some of them are the same. -

[Judy] Okay, we'll take a look at that. - I mean, philosophically, just so that they align with what comes forward. - Yep, we don't wanna be doing inadvertent disconnects. Okay, page 26, 5.3. So this is the one about corporate models. So develop a framework and statute for franchise or corporate model of family childcare ownership. And Hollee's point is this goes against everything that is family childcare. Is this another one where it's the language we're using about the small childcare? The language we talked about earlier about what do you call that thing between family childcare and centers? What's the language we're using there? Is that the issue?

31

#NAME? that remove this entire point. That would be my hope. I would like a vote on that. And then we could just move on either way. Nothing about this would be for family childcare.

#NAME? Part of the conversation and what we have over the years seen at DHS are in fact family childcare providers that have really established their business, their program, their client base and have either a second caregiver that they use as part of their program. Somebody that has been a sub that wants to move more into the field and they perhaps inadvertently, 'cause sometimes we don't know always what people are doing until we find out, oh, you shouldn't be doing that and they're really trying to say, "Yep, and now I wanna have a license which, I'm at my house, but I wanna have a license with Sally here and I wanna have a license with Jane here and I wanna have a li..." And they want to support, mentor, take a profit, all of that, right? And so I just want to say that lurking in here is a range of different models and I think that is what the legislative charge was for and so it's not at all meant to be disrespectful of that core and historical and traditional model of family childcare, but there have been over the years, ways in which people have wanted to do this and have wanted to say, I have more family, I have a waiting list. So how can I take, like my sister had come, she has a background study training. So I'm just saying it's like, we've seen mothers and daughters and how do you blend that in a way? So yes, people can be licensed separately but sometimes it's that person saying, I wanna be able to make sure that this runs the way I need it to." So I just wanna offer that as other examples of how a very traditional, typical family childcare also moves into this. And I don't think that it therefore becomes just a center. Now, there are also others where it's very much like, Hey, I am a business and we wanna buy some homes throughout this county and it is in a rural place we've heard about and we wanna be able to run five or six different, small in-home family childcare." And so then it's like, well, are they the your employees who hold the license? Do they know this? Well, that's not our model. So lurking in here are things that we have wrestled with. We brought some of those examples into the work group and I'm not saying this is the only way to begin to address it, but it does speak to taking really well-established family childcare providers that have this sense of wanting to expand, even if it's just one more license that they have their 'skin' in the game. That's what we do for a license. Who's got the wringable neck? And so we would have to say no and we have said no. And we have found out about things that we didn't even fully understand 'cause sometimes they don't always tell us slash the county licensor. So I just wanna offer that for others in the group about where our conversation and others can chime in or not but that's a lot of what we did talk about. (indistinct)

#NAME? and they have a couple people on the group (indistinct). They are in-home and they visited a number in-home family (indistinct). So I wanna say it's an option. It wouldn't be a solution for every family childcare of course but it's an opportunity for those that are doing it well or wanna expand to do so.

#NAME? were breaking up a little bit and I had a thought while you were speaking so let me test this idea and then you can chime back in and hopefully we can hear all of what you're commenting on. What I'm hearing is the reaction to the words, franchise or corporate model and what I'm wondering is as I'm hearing you describe this if it's a multi-site family childcare ownership, if that's helpful or just muddies the water further 'cause I think the gist of what you were describing, Reggie about I'm doing childcare and my daughter, my sister, my sub are also going to do childcare and I'd like to have a formal relationship with them if that's what we're getting at here. - But Judy, I think we're back to this conversation that, technically, Group 5, our work group had it a lot. I think we've had it tonight all through this is, when you're saying is the problematic words, franchise or corporate. Well, I think what some of us might say on both sides of this conversation is maybe the troubling

32

word is family childcare, right? I mean, I think what lurks in here is, do we need to define what family childcare is, right? Support that, grow it, invest in it, keep that clear. And then do we need to say, but there's something else and that something else, whether we build it off of Rule 2, whether it goes in a different direction of Rule 2 and a half, Rule 3 and a half, whatever we call it however those standards get developed, legislatively, pilot, it's not about that, its like... but we should not, I think, seeing that it's an either/or, right? There is family childcare that is the core of what our licensed providers are. So I'm just saying like, does it need to be a formal recommendation, right? With something be called something other than? You could have Rule 2. I don't know how you get there. There are smart minds on this group but that would be my concern is that, I think what's really lurking in here is, would somebody say that still is family childcare? I don't know the answer to that but I think that's a really important question as opposed to saying if you call it franchise, that seems to be contrary or disrespectful or at the heart of family childcare, but people have wanted to do that and they have been family providers. So I just wanna make sure we're struggling with two, how to really honor that longstanding traditional, that's who the bulk providers are. So I don't know if that's like, if we're focusing in the right place and whether there really is a underlying recommendation that is lurking in here that we need to identify and wrestle with because I think there's such great opportunities to keep moving this field. Other states call it different things, right? Small group childcare, large group childcare. They may or may not use family. Family might be limited to a certain number of kids or a certain location. So I just don't want us to be limited by our current construct. I think that's what this recommendation forces us to do is to say typically family childcare, typically Rule 3 center. There's a need for something else, there's needs for lots of something elses. How do we get there without pitting these against each other? That's my sincere hope and I think that's what we heard a lot of in Group 5.

#NAME? Okay, I'm gonna take this off. Yes. - Judy, I just wanna be sure though, because the next one down, 5.4, goes into increasing awareness of existing Special Family Childcare options and we're talking in 5.3 is that 5.4 doesn't exist. There are already a number of options and I don't know that they've been fully explored yet themselves. - All right, so I'm gonna suggest that again, I take this offline and I hope you guys don't mind but Liz, Ariane and Stephanie, I'm gonna add this to our list to talk about.

#NAME? Can I ask? -

[Judy] Yes. - Is there anything, you're talking about a corporate family childcare and these are not corporate, sorry, franchise, okay? My concern as a provider is if my name is on the license for all these other people and things go south, it's my heinie. Is there anything that would keep a family childcare provider from starting a business relationship with providers? The provider holds their own license but you are a business which helps this provider and then they pay you for that help. Is there anything that stops family childcare providers from doing that? Instead of their name being on the license, more of a business agreement - Reggie can't hear you. - I'm sorry. I'm calling in from my phone for audio so I'm gonna unmute twice. I think I would say like the top of my head, I think the answer is probably no. I mean, it's like we licensed the primary caregiver, that's where that language comes from, that's one of those barriers in here and if people are choosing to, whether they hire somebody to do their bookkeeping for them, right? They hire somebody to do something. I mean, that's the business side of the business, right? That's not the caregiving side. Those people, if somebody is doing your... whatever it is, they're building families, they're just taking care of all your paperwork, they're making sure that all these forms are done. I mean, if somebody's doing that for you but the licensor, everything is in compliance. I

33

think the answer could be, they can do some of that but that's not necessarily about the care and I think that's what lurks in here is, what does that person want to do, right? Some of that can be done.

#NAME? difficult for one provider to have a license for five different people and to be in those homes on a daily basis to make sure all the health and safety standards, everything is going on. It's a huge liability where if we did it on the backend as a business to help people, that lessens your liability and leaves that health and safety standard liability up to the actual provider. You can give them all the instruction you want but if they don't follow it, I don't want it to come back and pull my license and I lose five or six programs. That's all I'm saying about that. - And I think they're enough. Right in the conversation that our group has been having that there are like variations on a theme and not all of it involves the care of children. So I think you would have joined and fit right into that conversation. That's exactly a lot of the stuff we talked about and I think it ties into this whole shared service. I mean, we saw laps right. We saw overlap with other conversations about that kinda, we knew another group was looking at things like shared services models and so we tried to not worry about that, but we saw synergies in a lot of these (indistinct). - Okay, so I will work on, with others on some alternatives there and come back to you. Last thing I think we'll be able to squeeze in tonight is recommendation 5.4 about increasing awareness of existing special family childcare options and DHS had given us a little alternative language down below in lines, 29 through 35. If you could take a quick look there at the original language and the revised language, and Hollee you say, focus on existing special options which I think is the whole point of 5.4. So take a look at that language.

#NAME? and highlighting instead of adding more money to it. I thought I was clear on that.

#NAME? So, (clearing throat) obviously they're providing funding always would be the purview of the legislature to decide to give you funding to do things, so that might be handled through that process. Let's look at that alternative language on line 29. Does that clarify things and make this more straight forward? - I like DHS's language but I move to strike the last sentence. I don't... I would like to vote about not... we don't need more funding for highlighting existing programs.

#NAME? it were a two-step process I would agree with Hollee and strike the funding. Highlight the things first and then have some sort of gauge of interest and ability to actually put these things into place, and then maybe the funding would be another... That's kind of how I see it as we wanna make sure that people know about it before we go into the next step of saying, here's some money to do it. So I think they go hand in hand but I think one of them to try and get everything, as much as we can, the information pushed out of there first is for me, would be a bigger priority. -

[Judy] Okay.

#NAME? time we throw the funding in, it makes it very controversial and it's very distracting.

#NAME? Okay, so I would like to do a show of hands. So Jake, if you can take this down and get people's faces back up here. - I'll also throw out there Judy real quick, that just because it's not in our report doesn't mean we can't come back to something later. If we decided we wanted to fund something in a community, we could do that at a later point from the legislature. So that doesn't mean we can't do it. We're just trying to be a little tighter on what we're doing here.

34

#NAME? All right, so raise your hands if you think the revised language in lines 29 through 34 ending with the word models, period, should be the revised language for the recommendation. All right, majority saying yes. Thank you. All right, so we didn't quite make it through the whole report which was my hope but if there's a lot. As a preview, there are some things in... actually, here's what I'm gonna do. Here is what I'm gonna do. I would like to assume that everything I have highlighted in blue for the rest of the report is just hunky-dory and we can skip talking about it next time. So if you could take a quick look. It's a highly technical term Senator, hunky-dory. So if you could take a look in the next day, just the next day, just look at the next three sections and look at the stuff in blue and go, yep, it's mine and if you think it is not fine, send something to Jake right away by the end of the business day tomorrow, okay? Just do that so we can clear some blue stuff off of our calendar, off of our discussion for December, all right? I will be in touch with folks who have volunteered or been voluntold on these revisions about amendments and changes to the language and so what you will get back on the 30th is what we can change based on our conversation so far, okay? And so I'm hoping that we will have a focused conversation on parts one through five, minimal to say, yep, those did it or nope, we still can't agree, move on. And then in December we will finalize Duty 6, 7 and 8, all right? And just as a... the very last page of the report there were my question about, should there be an appendix of resources and a couple of you said yes and I think that's just great. We'll run with it and I'm thrilled about it but I'm gonna assign it to Jake. So he's probably not as happy as I am. The continuing the task force in some way, that conversation had not been reflected in this draft and so I will draft up some language for you to look at in the version that you get on the 30th and have it be as part of this. And Stephanie raised the thing about, will the report include the fact that the recommendations were in priority order? Not all the work groups did that and I don't know if we'll have the time to sort that out. If we do in December, we'll go to it. I suspect the way tonight's conversation went that we might not get to that level of detail. So I think we should probably declare victory for tonight 'cause I for one am exhausted. I can imagine that you are all (laughing). So senator, can you take us out?

#NAME? and I think that that scenario, we always have ideals and goals that we try and reach and the balance of all the discussion, but every time I come away richer for the discussion and information that gets shared and the value of the task force and looking at those things is without question very very helpful and yes, more work to do, we think for all of us as well. I know how busy you all are and the challenging times we are in though but doing your homework and working together and going through all that stuff before we come to the meeting sure proves itself as valuable and well worth it. With that, I wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving and we'll be in touch. We are adjourned. -

[Judy] Goodnight everybody, thank you.

35