The House Rules Committee voted 7-0 on April 3 to report HR 6, a resolution that would amend the House Ethics Rule to let the House Ethics Panel issue short public statements when an investigation is already public, require a nonidentifying closure report for each complaint, and add limited confidentiality exceptions.

The resolution is aimed at increasing transparency about how the House addresses ethics complaints while preserving the anonymity of complainants and respondents where appropriate. Supporters said it mirrors practices used by other Vermont regulatory bodies and neighboring legislatures.

Representative Malone, chair of the House Ethics Panel and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told the committee HR 6 was driven by a desire for greater transparency after a high-profile matter last year. "We started thinking about how we might be more transparent," Malone said, adding the rule would let the panel "make limited comment" when the subject of a complaint is already publicly known. Malone described the panel's existing options—finding no reasonable grounds, stipulations and consent orders, or a hearing with a recommendation to the full body that could result in reprimand, censure or expulsion.

Betsy Anne Rask, clerk of the House and co-counsel to the House Ethics Panel, laid out examples from other state boards the panel reviewed while drafting HR 6. Rask said the Vermont Supreme Court's disciplinary rules and the Office of Professional Regulation provide models for retaining complaint registries and issuing closure reports that "shall not identify the complainant, the respondent, or any other person by name" but that summarize allegations and final dispositions. She also cited the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and New Hampshire's legislative ethics rules as reference points.

Among the changes HR 6 would make to House Rule 90(b) are:
- A narrow exception allowing the panel to issue a brief public statement when the pendency of an investigation is already generally known through independent sources and public confidence may be threatened by lack of information. The statement would be limited to confirming the existence of an investigation, clarifying procedural aspects and noting that respondents are entitled to due process.
- A requirement that the panel issue a closure report for every complaint, placed in a registry on the panel's webpage. The closure report would summarize allegations and the final disposition without naming complainants or respondents.
- Codified confidentiality language with specific exceptions: disclosure by court order, disclosure to law enforcement that agrees to keep information confidential, and limited sharing with the discrimination prevention or harassment prevention panels when those panels agree to maintain confidentiality. The rule would also state records produced or acquired by the panel are not subject to the Public Records Act, consistent with current panel procedure.

Representative Quett raised concerns about how the change might affect the harassment prevention panel and whether potential complainants would be deterred if matters became more visible. "I have concerns about the harassment panel having to go public with this," Quett said. Malone and Rask said the proposal applies to the House Ethics Panel and that the harassment and discrimination panels had been consulted; they indicated procedures could clarify that the ethics panel would not pass along confidential details received from those other panels.

After committee discussion, a member moved to report HR 6 favorably to the floor. The committee recorded a roll-call vote: Representative Bartholomew — yes; Representative Dolan — yes; Representative Felthitt — yes; Representative Houghton — yes; Representative McCoy — yes; Representative Toots — yes; and the committee chair voting yes. The motion passed 7-0. The clerk said HR 6 will be placed on the next day's calendar and proceed to second and third readings as part of the regular floor process.

The committee's action reports the measure to the full House; it does not itself change House rules. If adopted by the full House, HR 6 would move text from the Ethics Panel's internal procedure into the formal House rules and require the panel to publish nonidentifying closure reports and follow the limited disclosure steps described in the resolution.

The committee also noted the panel will continue refining its procedures to make clear what, if any, information from the discrimination or harassment prevention panels could be summarized in closure reports without revealing confidential sources.