Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Building Security Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H.349 to create Vermont State Building Security Board and a buildings-and-courthouses police unit
Summary
The House Corrections and Institutions committee on April 10 received a walkthrough of H.349, which would move responsibility for most state-facility security from the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services to a newly created Vermont State Building Security Board and would create a Buildings and Courthouses Police Department.
The House Corrections and Institutions committee on April 10 received a walkthrough of H.349, a bill that would shift responsibility for security of state facilities from the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services (BGS) to a newly created Vermont State Building Security Board and would establish a Buildings and Courthouses Police Department within the Department of Public Safety.
John Gray, Legislative Counsel, described the bill’s central change: “What this bill does is it shifts responsibility for all state facilities other than the state house to a newly created Vermont State Building Security Board.” The draft makes conforming changes throughout Title 29 (public property and supplies) to reflect the board’s responsibilities and sets an implementation date of July 1, 2025.
Under the draft, the board would appoint a director of safety and security, who would serve at the board’s pleasure. The bill also outlines board membership, six-year terms, a minimum meeting frequency, and per-diem compensation for members. Section 3 of the draft creates a Buildings and Courthouses Police Department in the Department of Public Safety; that department’s officers would have powers and authority comparable to sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers and would provide security and law-enforcement services for state buildings and courthouses.
Committee members asked procedural and policy questions. Members asked what problem the bill is intended to solve and what “value add” the board would provide compared with BGS’s current role. Gray said the draft is a rerun of earlier legislation and that the drafting approach could be adjusted; he recommended review of membership, terms and statutory language. Members flagged the need to define “security” (for example: building systems and infrastructure versus personnel-focused protocols) and to consider how emergency management roles (for flood, pandemic or other events) would interface with the new board.
The committee planned to invite BGS (the current administrative entity responsible for facility security) to discuss current practice and emergency-management integration. Committee members also noted likely stakeholders to consult, including sheriffs and courthouse leadership, since the draft affects courthouse security and shifts responsibilities currently held by the BGS commissioner.
No formal action or votes were taken. Staff said they would schedule BGS testimony for a future meeting so members can compare current practice with the board proposal before considering statutory changes.
