Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Government & Elections topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Panel hears changes to Veterans Advisory Committee membership, debate over including formerly incarcerated veterans

2772954 · March 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Legislation to update the governor-appointed Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee drew significant testimony on whether the panel should specifically include formerly incarcerated veterans.

The Senate committee heard Engrossed Substitute House Bill 15 41, a measure to revise membership on the governor’s Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee (VAC) to reflect changing veteran demographics. The bill would preserve Veterans Service Organization (VSO) representation while allowing appointment of members who represent veterans with lived experience, including housing barriers, post-traumatic stress recovery and substance use disorder.

Representative Hunter Abel, the bill’s House sponsor, said the changes were requested by the Department of Veterans Affairs and VAC members to ensure advice to the governor reflects current veteran needs. “This bill makes some modest revisions to the composition of the VAC, all with the goal of ensuring that the governor and our state department of veterans affairs are receiving the very best of advice, given our changing veteran demographics,” Abel said.

The bill generated extensive testimony — much of it urging that the committee explicitly restore language added in the House floor amendment to allow appointment of formerly incarcerated veterans or “justice-involved” veterans. Several witnesses described reentry work and argued the amendment was removed on the House floor without a clear rationale.

Michael Shoemaker, a formerly incarcerated veteran, told the committee he opposed the bill as written because he believes it excludes people with his experience: “I am a disabled veteran… I am asking you to vote no on 15 41 simply because there is not a representative with something of my past and what I've done since.”

Committee staff said the bill’s language listing possible lived-experience categories was permissive and not intended to be exclusive; staff noted a House floor amendment at one point had named justice-involved veterans explicitly. Senator Hasegawa and other senators recommended pursuing an amendment to add explicit language restoring formerly incarcerated veterans. The committee closed the hearing with the sponsor and witnesses indicating willingness to work on clarifying language before executive action.