Committee accepts amendment to H.259 on hospital workplace violence plans; amendment clarifies legal limits and capital‑investment language

Legislative counsel and committee members debated an amendment to H.259, a bill to require uniform workplace‑violence prevention plans in hospitals. The committee accepted the amendment by a straw poll vote reported as 10 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 abstention.

Katie MacLeod, legislative counsel, read the amendment’s changes, saying the first insertion modifies the security‑plan language so that the requirement that a hospital employee trained in trauma‑informed care serve as a law‑enforcement liaison would apply "to the extent permitted under state and federal law." MacLeod told the committee this change responded to concerns raised in the judiciary committee about potential conflicts with prior legislation.

MacLeod also described a second alteration that removes an incorrect citation and a third insertion adding a new subsection (F): "Nothing in this section shall require a hospital to make capital investments to implement its security plan." She said the intent is to clarify that the bill does not compel hospitals to undertake capital projects, while still requiring the hospitals to file cost information with the Green Mountain Care Board if they choose to make investments related to workplace‑violence prevention.

Representative Donahue and other committee members raised concerns that language prioritizing "the safety and retention of hospital employees" might tip the balance away from patients; the added qualification "to the extent permitted under state and federal law" was discussed as a compromise. Committee members and witnesses stressed the bill’s primary focus is on planning, risk assessment, incident reporting, training and annual review rather than mandating specific physical infrastructure changes.

Several members pressed on accountability and enforcement. Some said frontline workers and unions support the bill’s social‑and‑training focus but asked what mechanisms would compel a hospital to implement physical changes (for example, security glass or other capital investments) if a plan’s annual review recommended them. Legislative counsel and supporters replied that the bill was intended to standardize planning, remove certain administrative barriers (including some certificate‑of‑need restrictions discussed on the floor), and require transparency to the Green Mountain Care Board; it does not impose a direct enforcement mechanism to force capital work.

Devin Green (identified in the hearing transcript as "from Buzz") and nurse representatives said frontline workers sought concrete protections. MacLeod and other speakers noted hospitals and worker coalitions had negotiated the bill’s approach and that hospitals would still include any costs associated with implementing security plans in their budget filings for Green Mountain Care Board review.

At the committee’s close, Representative Cordes (noted in the record as the amendment sponsor) and others signaled support for the amendment. The chair called a straw poll; committee staff reported the amendment was accepted, with the numerical tally read as "10, 0, 1."