[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6084598,"mediaKeyId","2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a","parentId",2910790,"title","Panel debate: mandatory consultation with State Ethics Commission and separation‑of‑powers concerns","audioSeconds",2007,"startMs",4191000,"endMs",6198000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a&start=4191&end=6198","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a/thumbnail_4191000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6084598/Vermont/Panel-debate-mandatory-consultation-with-State-Ethics-Commission-and-separationofpowers-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084598-e0a90d873017f6fb524feb1ee3a9896d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900425&Signature=A1GuLlGSbWHldgM~SKIgqv9cyfBb8XjW69Cw7-K-ykbRJo4YtLMyyFIkxmLo0h1D8KGChKnE4534gb4hINqldfcgwAfhitCMKpp742owseWcejrmz-JROeybEiADsZWNGCaXyyK1OwbyWb~uUjf2mSh9BmiVUHUCCdnWRABUaly25wImyaOg2c3xgJWNKhp1BMV7HkaBJjGVobKVXSBhRaNeTQ5cUKW44BWn~5dHCAz7CKTej7luDlUclFvExCbVveIyX5T2v1Rb~Xhk~BO2kiaNv5wT7q8Jz8dEPplMIsp2p5n7qnNJ-bsKcM~hjJaenrTTkq-tOtsFP0NsTTPQ9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-09T12:11:38.097Z","article","The Government Operations committee spent substantial time on the constitutional question of whether legislative panels (and judicial disciplinary bodies) should be required by statute to consult the State Ethics Commission when a complaint touches the State Code of Ethics. Testimony reflected two enduring tensions: (1) whether a statutorily mandated consultation infringes on the legislature’s core, constitutionally assigned functions, and (2) how to balance an independent statewide ethics process with the legislative body’s prerogative to set its own rules and discipline.

Paul Gillies, a municipal-law attorney and longtime observer of Vermont constitutional practice, told the committee that separation-of-powers jurisprudence recognizes necessary overlaps among branches and that consultation by the ethics commission is unlikely to rise to a constitutional usurpation of core legislative function. \"I don't see it as interfering with core legislative responsibilities,\" Gillies said, characterizing consultation as an informational tool rather than a directive: \"Nothing that the commission does forces the legislature ... to do anything. It just gives them a little more opportunity to talk about things.\"

By contrast, Jay (Jake) Hirshon Johnson, legal counsel to the governor, urged caution. Johnson said the State Ethics Commission’s investigatory and referral powers — effective in statute on Sept. 1, 2025 — and a requirement that the Legislature consult the commission could create a slippery slope: \"This committee has worked very hard over the last eight years to develop a functioning ethics commission... I find these (mandatory) consultation requirements troubling because they risk pulling what should be legislative core functions under an external review process.\" Johnson referenced Vermont case law that stresses the practical realities of overlapping authority but argued the statutory mandate could enable an outside body to indirectly influence internal legislative discipline.

Committee counsel and other witnesses explained how the statute currently operates and where the perceived friction lies. Under the statute enacted last year, the Ethics Commission may receive complaints, review and refer matters that relate to the State Code of Ethics and campaign finance law. Committee members asked whether the statute, as written, already requires a referral in practice and whether additional mandatory consultation language in H.1 (a companion bill under discussion) would change the legal posture.

John Bloomer, a former legislative leader and longtime Senate staffer, argued that mandating consultation by statute crosses a constitutional line because only the legislature may prescribe its own internal proceedings and discipline. \"Consultation and receiving information from a source is not a problem — it's when they're requiring you to get it. When you are directed in statute to follow a process that affects your adopted rules and what they can be, that is unconstitutional,\" Bloomer told the committee. He urged the panel to guard the legislative branch’s prerogatives and to rely on existing channels of consultation when necessary rather than a binding statutory referral.

Committee members repeatedly raised a narrower practical question: if a complaint touches both the State Code of Ethics and a rule that is clearly a core legislative function (for example, internal procedure or member discipline), who decides whether the matter is within the commission’s scope? Several witnesses suggested that clarifying language around what constitutes a \"core legislative function\" would help. Others said that the current law’s effective-investigatory date (Sept. 1, 2025) makes the question timely: the commission will shortly have broader investigatory authority.

No final decision was made. Several senators asked staff to produce a short legal memo outlining the constitutional arguments and case law, and the committee scheduled follow-up witnesses for its next meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Government Operations - 2025-04-08 - 1:30PM","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members and outside counsel debated whether statute should require legislative panels to consult the State Ethics Commission before disciplining members in matters that touch the State Code of Ethics, with testimony split on separation‑of‑powers risks.","taxTitle","Government Operations, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",38232,"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},6084613,"Committee reviews H.397: statewide emergency-management changes, voluntary buyouts and municipal reimbursements",3757,519000,4276000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a&start=519&end=4276","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a/thumbnail_519000.jpg","/articles/6084613/Vermont/Committee-reviews-H397-statewide-emergency-management-changes-voluntary-buyouts-and-municipal-reimbursements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084613-ebd220f088b7cc59d53166f763bd7e5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900425&Signature=SqapiNx4D8NS3Ob-d9BcQtG-jahRZp4pujbmzCm3WRhYNEtNMFK1TEq4YTRhzm0M-Rc5hHIDeJvv5UC1~uY7f9MXTBEcEXMLccF~mUnqp7aukOncBNg6qyRk3q8tDg4954YXrEHr5F6rb3z~kfwh8cSs0S8B9vehuwOgKSPo-iR3LGFD8P5lJ09xmtl8sz4YujydoJEyAGJiqqzwOJsI-mpyCLgm7Co2fu5yMxIeJ64uzsKMphMUcQS0Iy3AgJOQIASsyvxNKiBiqzg9AO9skcKRKM30p~b2r-IqKdsvTzm6YxJjs9RGWeXK0vu4euhsDU-9zt3Zbof1BB4ZrpolZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Government Operations committee members on April 8 discussed H.397, the bill described by staff as “an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to the statutes governing emergency management and flood response,” with state emergency management officials, legislative counsel and fiscal staff walking the panel through new reporting requirements, a voluntary buyout program and a municipal reimbursement plan tied to the state’s pilot special fund.

The bill would require the Division of Emergency Management to provide annual presentations about all-action items from the state hazard mitigation plan and to collaborate with specified recovery and planning partners to assist municipalities in developing elements of the State Emergency Management Plan (SEMP). It also creates a statutory voluntary buyout program for flood-prone properties and a municipal grand-list stabilization program that would reimburse towns for lost property-tax revenue when municipalities acquire flood-prone properties and preserve them as open space.

Why it matters: committee members, sponsors and agency witnesses said the bill aims to improve coordination on mitigation and recovery after flooding while providing a predictable funding path for buyouts and short-term municipal fiscal relief after disasters.

Division duties and local vs. state planning

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, told the committee that Section 1 would add an annual presentation requirement to the committee and the House’s Government Operations committee on the all-hazards mitigation plan. Anderson said the bill also requires the division to provide assistance to municipalities to develop and implement components of the SEMP, and lists items the state plan must include, such as templates for municipal emergency-parking plans, systems for contacting vulnerable residents and provisions for notification systems and training.

Eric Clarkson, a Division of Emergency Management official, explained the agency already presents hazard-mitigation updates to its mitigation planning and policy committee every five years and questioned whether duplicative presentations to the Legislature were efficient. \"We already give that presentation every year to our mitigation planning and policy committee,\" Clarkson said. \"If legislators want us to give it, we can, or we can forward the report — whatever is most efficient.\" Clarkson also recommended placing highly local items, such as emergency parking plans, into the local emergency management plan statute rather than embedding them in a state-level section, saying operational details are often more appropriate at the municipal level.

Vulnerable populations, notification and training

Witnesses discussed an existing statewide system — CARES (a confidential registry accessed via 2-1-1) — that permits municipalities to receive lists of residents who identify themselves as vulnerable and who may need wellness checks during an event. Clarkson emphasized the registry exists but that gaps remain in local capacity to conduct outreach and checks: \"The system is there. It's the ability to actually use the system, and there's probably also an education portion of it,\" he said. The bill would require municipalities’ plans and the state plan to address outreach and training, while the division would be asked to report a needs assessment identifying resources required to implement the act.

Committee members and Clarkson also discussed notification options already available to towns and residents: Vermont Alerts, reverse 911, Wireless Emergency Alerts and National Weather Service warnings. Clarkson said the state can push emergency messages statewide or target local areas and that the tools exist, but some residents and municipalities may be unaware or lack the subscription/account setup.

Voluntary buyout program and municipal reimbursement (\"Muggles program\")

Section 3 creates a statutory voluntary buyout program for flood-prone properties and requires municipal acquisition of a purchased property to hold it as open space with a deed restriction prohibiting redevelopment — a condition tied to FEMA eligibility in existing practice. \"The program allows a municipality, at the request of the owner of a flood-prone property, to apply for funding to cover the purchase price of the property, which shall be the full fair market value,\" Anderson said.

Section 5 establishes a municipal grand-list stabilization program within the Department of Taxes to reimburse municipalities for lost property tax revenue when eligible properties are acquired under the buyout program. Under the proposal described by legislative counsel, eligible properties would be certified to the tax commissioner each September; municipalities would receive annual payments equal to the grand-list value times the municipal rate for five consecutive years, then a reduced payment of half that amount for subsequent eligible years, with a per-property limit of reimbursement payments for no more than 10 years in total.

Fiscal staff estimated initial costs tied to the pilot special fund at roughly $550,000 a year for the early cohort of buyouts and reimbursements; fiscal analysts and the sponsor said the House-passed budget included a $1 million pilot-fund appropriation intended to seed the program and that the pilot fund currently carries a multi-year operating surplus. Joint Fiscal Office staff warned that if the pilot special fund balance is insufficient to meet all authorized payments in a given year, payments would be reduced proportionately across recipients.

Questions raised in committee

Committee members pressed agency witnesses on three recurring themes: (1) whether language is too prescriptive at the state level for items that are operationally local, (2) whether listing specific external partners in statute might unintentionally limit future collaboration if entities change, and (3) how new duties would be resourced. Clarkson and other agency witnesses urged flexible statutory drafting that sets a floor for required consultation and collaboration while avoiding lists of permanently named actors that could narrow future practice.

Next steps and implementation

Legislative counsel and agency witnesses told the committee the bill’s effective date language varies by section; several fiscal and program elements would phase in on July 1, 2025, while other reporting and investigatory provisions carry different dates. Staff offered to provide a follow-up memo with timeline examples (for example, the sequence that triggers grand-list certification and municipal payments after a buyout) to clarify implementation sequences.

Clarifying details (from testimony):
- Voluntary buyout program: purchases to be made at full fair market value; acquired properties must be preserved as open space with restricting covenant (referenced by Tucker Anderson and Eric Clarkson).
- Municipal grand-list stabilization payments: computed from the grand-list value in the year the property was damaged or identified as flood-prone multiplied by the municipality’s tax rate; payments scheduled annually on or before Jan. 1 for five years and then reduced to half for subsequent years up to a 10‑year limit (explained by legislative counsel and fiscal staff).
- Fiscal estimate: Joint Fiscal Office estimated about $550,000 per year in early years for the program cohort; the House-passed budget included a $1 million pilot-fund appropriation to seed initial payments (JFO testimony).

No formal votes were recorded during the committee’s walkthrough—the session focused on agency presentations, clarifying questions and requests for follow-up detail.

Ending

Committee members asked staff and agency witnesses for written materials and a follow-up timeline memo explaining how certification, buyout closings and municipal reimbursements would flow across fiscal years. Members also signaled interest in revising statutory placement for highly local operational items (for example, emergency parking plans) so the state SEMP sets standards and templates while leaving implementation details to local emergency management plans.","Senate Government Operations committee members on April 8 discussed H.397, which would add annual reporting, municipal assistance duties and a statutory voluntary buyout program to Vermont’s emergency-management laws, plus a municipal grand-list stabilization reimbursement tied to the pilot special fund.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6084603,"Lawmakers press treasurer on notification, opt‑out clarity for Vermont Saves payroll‑deduction IRA",3627,3023000,6650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a&start=3023&end=6650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a/thumbnail_3023000.jpg","/articles/6084603/Vermont/Lawmakers-press-treasurer-on-notification-optout-clarity-for-Vermont-Saves-payrolldeduction-IRA","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084603-5a622aba9205a6b651b5fbe4e7f90468/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900426&Signature=MeX2gVBSKZbrbdlozWmgi9uy~b9dyqCLoJ05ElpJ3nxLc0cVKqjhyZIqG1UTAPpiBfS6F9R6q3EkjPWjZwL7arsulRdn4aSoNy3qFONpwp6u5M-SVdI56wTNhXujncNnyokzc9GPOfwiDKRZLnPhBCjCGyfjVfl4kcSMFA~nGP4i313QCPgDfefWjVEUEzgUVpnTZJ18bIXiWsn0FA5OdC8BmEre1AuFw~weZbTV08FshbwIJbltuTBA0Je3a8Hp~806RsbvzYhOvqFyH9TDtJelcOUO8naV261vAcU3YoW39mRR7Nmsddh4~OQSjWHUnHPE6wz2LJN7uHR4jbMYvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee heard a detailed walkthrough of Vermont Saves — the state’s new automatic‑enrollment payroll Roth IRA for workers whose employers do not offer retirement plans — and lawmakers pressed state officials about how employees are notified and how to ensure enrollment remains effectively voluntary.

Representative Donahue opened the item by describing concerns from constituents and employers who said the program’s initial notice could be confusing. Donahue said an employer reported that none of its employees opened the email notice and that some workers only realized contributions had started when they received their first paychecks. \"If the initial orientation comes from noreply@someday.com, some people will delete it as spam,\" Donahue said.

State Treasurer Becky Wasserman replied that the office and the program administrator (Vestwell) have pushed changes to the communications. Wasserman said three separate communications are sent to enrolled workers: an initial notice from the administrator, a payroll‑deduction notice on pay stubs, and an account statement from the Roth IRA custodian. She also said the program uses employer contact information on file (unemployment insurance records or employer-supplied lists) and that employers can, within legal limits, inform employees about the program.

Key points from testimony and committee questions

- Opt‑out mechanics and notice: Representative Donahue and others urged clearer, prominent language on the initial notice (for example, a front‑page statement that the default is automatic payroll deduction unless the employee opts out). Wasserman said the administrator will change email domains to Vestwell’s domain (vestwell.com) and that the treasurer’s office has posted notices on its site clarifying the legitimate sender.
- Required identity verification: Donahue noted the initial account-setup flow asks for a Social Security number to confirm identity. Wasserman said the request is part of account creation and identity confirmation for the Roth IRA custodian.
- Participation metrics: Wasserman said the program has registered roughly 1,000 employers and about 1,500 funded accounts shortly after launch, with continuing outreach planned through industry associations and employer groups.

What committee members asked

Senators and representatives repeatedly raised two concerns: first, that many employees may not open or properly read an initial email and thus miss a passive default; and second, that opt-out must be made prominent and actionable so the program remains truly voluntary. Members urged the treasurer’s office to continue to improve the initial notice to make opt‑out mechanics explicit, to highlight the legitimate sender and to coordinate with employers where permissible.

Treasurer’s office response and next steps

Wasserman told the committee the office has already engaged the program administrator about email domains and message formatting and will continue to refine employer and public outreach. She said the program includes a variety of investment options — including a capital-preservation option and target-date funds — and that account statements and IRA disclosures will reach savers after accounts are funded.

Ending

Committee members asked staff to follow up on whether employers can provide pre‑enrollment notices that clearly call out opt‑out mechanics and to obtain updated registration and account metrics from the treasurer’s office.","Representatives and the State Treasurer discussed the new Vermont Saves opt‑out Roth IRA payroll program: employers’ notice practices, the program administrator’s email domain and the need for clearer opt‑out language. Treasurer’s office said multiple communications are sent and that Vestwell is program administrator.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6084608,"Community radio manager urges restoration of $205,000 grant for emergency broadcasting",183,2807000,2990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a&start=2807&end=2990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2910790-88278a7eb59803be213711add9fda74a/thumbnail_2807000.jpg","/articles/6084608/Vermont/Community-radio-manager-urges-restoration-of-205000-grant-for-emergency-broadcasting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084608-499abdf78f79527d31093ae153296374/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900426&Signature=axEe-9tS3RA3mccDHD4y2M7wlDpyk4rChdah7b6E75EiNc8lWa78i2VuNrW3IAuzbJcdZIwARszwGUezh6xS2c7EprTAnrp7ULAMxGnknp3l1o5fWmrHJIOgGtm74prYUfirZ2kTQ2Dbe8arTPKhveeyyWufVkBPtvprvBZAAfVsuNnR7X6Lb2JHlgaiV7y39hdO3Fe3PJDcbxS2O6mlCTjI~YjN-bqEVsD~3YdPlxoi0ObxCWvqaAu44cPx7LHrBmSrgPh2zTR85kVZYQDyEGkJkIlGVnHZ63U5PlhZet~MEj~bKwMMjhX-xVvRNCMj0kVOJXwZuNfRjBN-5mImSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lou Mulvaney Stanek, station manager for multiple Vermont community radio stations, told the Government Operations committee that low‑power community stations served as first-line information sources in recent floods and urged restoration of a one‑time $205,000 grant that had been removed from the House Appropriations version of H.397.

Stanek said community stations pivoted to emergency coverage during the 2023 and 2024 floods when cell service and internet were degraded, providing listeners with localized safety messaging, mutual-aid notices, guidance on FEMA and SBA resources, and live call-in help. \"When the cell phones stopped working, when the Internet went out, when the power went out, people could still listen to their radio,\" Stanek told senators. \"These stations reach nearly every county and cover most of rural Vermont.\"

What was requested and where it would go

Stanek described the request as a small, one-time capital package: roughly $205,000 total, allocated as about $25,000 each for seven existing stations and $10,000 each for three stations that are expected to come on air. The money would be used for long-lived equipment upgrades — transmitters, relocation of antennas to non‑flood sites, backup power and generators — items Stanek described as infrastructure that remains in place for decades.

Why supporters say it matters

Stanek said community stations are nimble and trusted: volunteers and staff can switch programing at a moment’s notice and focus air time on local road closures, boil-water notices, how to apply for federal assistance and contacts for mutual aid. He told the committee stations received dozens of listener thank-yous after recent floods and that the requested investment would yield capabilities that serve communities for years.

Committee response and next steps

Senators asked clarifying questions about the dollar amounts per station and about the status of efforts to identify an appropriations vehicle. Stanek said the Senate Appropriations chair had signaled willingness to find a vehicle if the committee wanted to restore the section. The discussion did not produce a vote; the committee requested follow-up on whether an appropriations vehicle could be identified and whether funding could be split across years.

Ending

Stanek asked committee members to reconsider adding the one‑time grant back to H.397 or to identify another mechanism to fund community radio resiliency upgrades. He noted the relatively small per‑station cost compared with the public-safety payoff in widespread emergencies.","A Bellows Falls community radio manager asked the committee to restore a one‑time $205,000 community radio grant (section 9 of H.397 as introduced) to upgrade transmitters and emergency gear after the appropriation was removed by Appropriations. Manager described stations' role during recent floods.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel debate: mandatory consultation with State Ethics Commission and separation‑of‑powers concerns

Committee reviews H.397: statewide emergency-management changes, voluntary buyouts and municipal reimbursements

Lawmakers press treasurer on notification, opt‑out clarity for Vermont Saves payroll‑deduction IRA

Community radio manager urges restoration of $205,000 grant for emergency broadcasting