[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6093746,"mediaKeyId","2845510-6f7027fbedcce51ac6d1e3441989154c","parentId",2845510,"title","Banks, advocates and landlords debate H.169’s Social Security and immigration provisions at committee hearing","audioSeconds",667,"startMs",1973000,"endMs",2640000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2845510-6f7027fbedcce51ac6d1e3441989154c&start=1973&end=2640","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2845510-6f7027fbedcce51ac6d1e3441989154c/thumbnail_1973000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6093746/Vermont/Banks-advocates-and-landlords-debate-H169s-Social-Security-and-immigration-provisions-at-committee-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6093746-5175d0fdf995658a7d0247ebda7e0336/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108035&Signature=WUX5n1KBocAFe2i~-hLYb4HqIzjYUXFB-NkFd0uQb5ex8EQiuv9W4fKwRTALCtr6UZAwdylsiwah0s5R1NhE97EuXpfnQHfsknTOc~th~A5VQ91R--Rcmq2fQ2FZyYkY1E3YLiqO9uRDK6n7Z60SA8-gCO2mKuKD6oBTHnkIIgRvtfUAt-F6Id~oDY1xgKaOm~NwkLN2wzt-mgAkNjB5L7tLA27VvYftlb74rpmnSI85z1Q0PIkykSgPvSb1x-Rfi3ByzpwTpii1oMdcwMkjrbUvUpTPsnqfAxijIxzYvR4gUtXw1Z5KmQw9SQ7nfFpMag65HokbbVWNyZDL-dFJuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-02T12:28:14.277Z","article","The House Committee on General and Housing continued hearings on H.169, an act to expand prohibitions on discrimination in public accommodations and housing, and heard sharply different perspectives on a provision that references immigration status and the use of Social Security numbers in rental and credit screening.

Chris Delia, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, told the committee he supports passage of H.169 generally but urged removal of the phrase “immigration status” from a section of the bill that banks find problematic. Delia told lawmakers that federal rules and secondary‑market requirements affect how lenders verify identity: quoting regulatory guidance, he said for a “non US person, 1 or more of the following pieces of information, a taxpayer identification number, passport number and country of issuance, alien identification card number” are acceptable alternatives to a Social Security number. He warned that some secondary‑market buyers such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require lenders to warrant that a mortgage borrower is legally present in the United States, and said that requirement complicates how small banks price and sell loans.

Advocates and renters’ organizations urged the committee to preserve protections in H.169 and to add practical alternatives so residents without Social Security numbers can compete for housing. Jose Ignacio de la Cruz, a leader with Migrant Justice, said the “sole fact of not having a Social Security number makes it almost impossible for members of our community to obtain an apartment or a house.” He described repeatedly being asked for an SSN while searching for housing, and said that only when a friend with a Social Security number agreed to put their name on a lease did his family secure stable housing — after paying first month, last month and a security deposit.

Will Lambach, organizer for Migrant Justice, told the committee the practice forces many immigrant workers into employer‑tied housing and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. Lambach and other advocates said landlords can conduct credit, background and eviction checks without an SSN and pointed to landlords who already avoid requesting Social Security numbers for privacy and safety reasons.

Alexandra Alvarado, director of education at the American Apartment Owners Association, described tenant‑screening industry practices and said alternative processes commonly work: “Most tenant screening companies do not [use a Social Security number]. Name and date of birth is typically all that is needed to do a criminal background search.” She explained that credit history can be built using an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) and that eviction searches often rely on prior addresses, which can be found through credit reports when an applicant has an ITIN or other established credit history.

Jess Hyman of CVOEO’s Statewide Housing Advocacy said the organization’s Vermont tenants helpline receives calls and emails from “more than 3,000 renters” a year and urged the committee to adopt H.169 with the Champlain Housing Trust amendment. Hyman said adding citizenship and immigration status to fair housing and public‑accommodations protections would increase tenants’ confidence to complain about habitability or retaliation and expand housing access.

Banks and some landlords raised enforcement and regulatory concerns. Delia said his members are examined for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act rules) and argued Vermont should avoid creating legal conflicts that would undermine lending products or secondary‑market sales. On the narrower policy point, Delia asked the committee to remove the two words “immigration status” on page 6, line 14 of the draft as written; advocates said Vermont can set a higher state standard and that New York and Washington have similar protections without the litigation problems the banks predicted.

Committee members and witnesses discussed compromise options — for example, allowing landlords and lenders to request a Social Security number when provided but requiring acceptance of government‑issued alternatives (ITINs, passports, or other photo ID) and preserving carve‑outs where federal programs require citizenship documentation. Witnesses urged the legislature to pair statutory protections with resources for enforcement, education and legal assistance so tenants can exercise rights without fear of retaliation.

The committee scheduled further testimony and said it will continue consideration of H.169 at future meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House General - 2025-04-01 - 2PM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Committee on General and Housing continued hearings on H.169 and heard sharply different perspectives on a provision that references immigration status and the use of Social Security numbers in rental and credit screening.","taxTitle","General & Housing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30954,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6093750,"UVM general counsel tells committee H.173 would remove CELRA’s balance and risk campus disruptions",656,2000,658000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2845510-6f7027fbedcce51ac6d1e3441989154c&start=2&end=658","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2845510-6f7027fbedcce51ac6d1e3441989154c/thumbnail_2000.jpg","/articles/6093750/Vermont/UVM-general-counsel-tells-committee-H173-would-remove-CELRAs-balance-and-risk-campus-disruptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6093750-6426e6e5f0cd7219a7064cc1662d94a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108035&Signature=H-N0d2UO~w3eeIDH1yWaWv8JP3S8PhsQiSwB0mCuD~mEli5A649WL9jGSuTVnB2wXKy8q46JdyukUqYmNzDlwc7MMEZY~iNTooDO~dbgcbaPPC3eG2qN9wZmolfcYOTJaYtvcTJT~M4imnrvHZxBxVswJ7w6xnyvGR2G90Ljd4A0DimMcdQTWLi~~CLxl4wQ7EClOMMtYGxbW3Txq65RKbAPD9-AXHobGBEG12WdehBkOPnrr5P8q~wLb6a1dGLmwV5Vf9b4XsZLMKwmZjJEwwxJylMup6WlA3WU~f3l4RxyeEOZlOAsm6rODYbTMENvqjA~rH8F4VE8jgNNOAYHiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sharon Reich Paulson, general counsel at the University of Vermont, told the House Committee on General and Housing that H.173 — a bill to give public higher education employees the right to strike — would “take away that balance of power and the public protection embedded in that balance.”

Paulson told the committee the State Employee Labor Relations Act (CELRA) creates a multi-step dispute-resolution process — mediation, fact finding and, if necessary, a Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) decision choosing either party’s last best offer or the fact‑finder’s recommendation — and that H.173 would add unilateral strike power without parallel guardrails for employers or the public.

Why it matters: Paulson said that removing CELRA’s dispute-resolution structure would shift power to one side and eliminate statutory protections designed to protect both employees and the public. She told lawmakers that a strike in a university setting could affect critical campus services — police, environmental health and safety staff, custodial and maintenance crews — and could disrupt students’ ability to complete required coursework and clinical hours, potentially jeopardizing accreditation, internships and licensure timelines.

Paulson described UVM’s most recent bargain with its Staff United unit as an example of the existing statutory process working. “Between February and August of 2024, we had 18 bargaining meetings,” she said. “We came to agreement on 32 articles in those 18 meetings. We failed to come to agreement on 3 of them. Staff United declared proposed impasse, and so we went into impasse and started those, that process.” She described the subsequent appointment and withdrawal of a fact finder, follow-up hearings, briefs and a March recommendation that ultimately led the parties to reach agreement and a contract now in ratification.

On timelines and caseload: Paulson said UVM currently has four matters pending at the VLRB (three filed in January, one filed in late December) and described the board as generally “responsible and responsive,” while noting she would check on an example cited by a committee member in which a matter filed in 2021 had a decision issued in 2025.

On statutory safeguards: Paulson contrasted K–12 labor law guardrails — cooling-off periods and limits on strikes that endanger public health, safety or welfare — with the proposal in H.173. She said H.173 lacks a cooling-off period and “no limitation on strike power as in labor relations also as in the Labor Relations for Teachers Act,” and that those missing guardrails matter because of the different operational and public-safety risks on a research university campus.

Committee members pressed Paulson on recruitment and retention, legal costs, who conducts negotiations at UVM (administrative staff versus counsel), and whether the imposition of a contract by an employer would address the harms she described. Paulson replied that even if an employer could impose terms, the union would still have the option to strike and that “the striking in the context of UVM . . . would potentially cause great harm to individuals who aren't members of the union and individuals who aren't members of the university administration, but are being serviced by the university.”

The committee followed Paulson’s testimony with additional witnesses on related matters. The hearing record shows the panel then moved on to H.169.","Sharon Reich Paulson, general counsel at the University of Vermont, told the House Committee on General and Housing that H.173, which would grant public higher education employees the right to strike, would remove statutory guardrails in CELRA and could pose health, safety and academic risks for students and campus operations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Banks, advocates and landlords debate H.169’s Social Security and immigration provisions at committee hearing

UVM general counsel tells committee H.173 would remove CELRA’s balance and risk campus disruptions