Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee removes early-educator licensure language in OPR bill, asks Secretary of State for report on data sales
Loading...
Summary
On May 29, the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs reviewed and signaled informal support for amendments to H.472 that remove early childhood educator licensure language from an Office of Professional Regulation bill, reclassify a newly created OPR position and require the Secretary of State to report on revenues from sales of public data by Dec. 1, 2025.
BURLINGTON, Vt. — On May 29, the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs reviewed amendments to H.472 that would change how the Office of Professional Regulation handles a newly created position, remove provisions creating an early childhood educator licensure, and require the Secretary of State to report on revenue from optional services including sales of public data.
The committee's legislative counsel, Tim Dufflin, told members the amendment package replaces the word “exempt” with “classified” for the one OPR position created in the bill and removes the sections establishing early educator licensure. He summarized the newest amendment as adding a reporting requirement tied to the Secretary of State’s authority to collect and deposit fees into the Secretary of State services fund.
“The secretary of state shall submit to the house committees on energy and digital infrastructure, on government operations and military affairs, and on ways and means, and to the senate committees on finance, on government operations, and on institutions, a written report detailing the revenues generated from optional services through sales of data … including the categories of data sold,” Dufflin read to the committee.
Rep. Kathleen James (D-Manchester), who joined the amendment sponsor team, said the report requirement grew out of recent testimony about state agencies’ practice of sharing or selling publicly available data. “Who's sharing it? Who are they sharing it with? What happens to the data after they share it with whoever they're sharing it with? How much money are they making? Where does the money go?” James asked. “We're gonna start pounding on this. Again, not because I think anything nefarious is going on … but because I think that we all deserve that information.”
Committee member Megan (first name only in the record) said the James/Sevilleo amendment made her “more comfortable” with the section that directs the Secretary of State to set fees and deposit them into the fund, because a report should clarify the scope and fee structure.
The committee took an informal thumbs poll on the James/Sevilleo amendment; the clerk recorded the result as 8-0-3 in favorability. Members similarly indicated support for the package of OPR-related amendments and the committee registered an informal favorable position on the substitute.
Discussion in the committee made clear that the proposed data sales authority would apply to “optional services offered in the normal course of business, including for one-time or periodic sales of data by subscription or other contractual basis.” James emphasized that the types of records at issue are, in many cases, already publicly available under existing law; the amendment aims to record and review the practice and proceeds.
The committee did not adopt the changes as formal legislation at the hearing; the meeting record shows informal committee positions (straw polls) and a referral to floor action as the bill proceeds.
Ending: The committee directed the Secretary of State to produce the written report by Dec. 1, 2025, as specified in the amendment language. Members said they expect the report to inform future oversight or legislative changes if needed.
