House committee hears sponsors introduce resolution reaffirming state recognition of Vermont Abenaki

Members of the Vermont House Committee on General & Housing on Tuesday heard sponsors introduce JRH 4, a joint resolution reaffirming the General Assembly’s support for the legislatively recognized Native American tribes and bands of Vermont.

Representative Merwicki, Representative Carolyn Brannigan and Representative Kate Logan introduced the resolution and Michael Chernick, legislative counsel, summarized its text and procedural effect before the committee.

The sponsors told the committee the resolution is intended to reassure Vermont’s Abenaki communities after criticism and debate about recognition in the past year. “I felt it was an absurd exercise for First Peoples to have to come to the colonialists who came after the fact and ask for us to recognize them,” Representative Merwicki said, describing why he supported the earlier recognition process and why he backed the reaffirmation. Representative Brannigan said the resolution would not alter existing recognition rules and stressed the distinction between state and federal recognition. “This is not federal recognition. This is state recognition,” Brannigan said.

Chernick, the legislative counsel who drafted the resolution, told the committee the measure is solely a reaffirmation and does not change the underlying statutory process for state recognition. “This resolution, I should explain, does not is a reaffirmation of the 02/2010 legislation. It does not change the underlying act that would require a bill, and that is not what this is,” he said. Chernick also explained that only the federal government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, can confer federal recognition and federal benefits.

Sponsors and counsel described two principal practical benefits they associated with state recognition: artisans who are accepted as tribal members may market their work as Native-made, which sponsors said can increase its value, and some colleges offer tuition reductions or scholarships for recognized Native students. Representative Brannigan cited Dartmouth and said the University of Vermont was considering similar measures.

Speakers discussed reasons tribes in Vermont have not obtained federal recognition, including gaps in documentary genealogy caused by historical dislocation and record loss. Brannigan and others mentioned Vermont’s history of eugenics and an official apology as contributing to missing records for some families.

The resolution’s operative text, as read to the committee, reaffirms support for “the legislatively recognized Native American tribes and bands of Vermont, their genealogical legitimacy, and the system established in 1 V.S.A. chapter 23” and directs the secretary of state to send a copy of the resolution to the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs.

Committee members asked procedural questions about next steps. Chernick explained that the resolution has been introduced and placed on the committee “wall,” meaning it has been entered into the committee’s files but not yet scheduled for a hearing. “If we don't take it off, nothing happens with the current statute,” a committee member said; Chernick added that if the committee takes it off the wall the committee may receive testimony and may amend the resolution as it would a bill. The committee did not take further action during the meeting.

Sponsors said the resolution responds to recent public debate, support offered at a recent event where scholars and members of Vermont Abenaki presented their case for recognition, and concerns raised about coverage from outside Canada. The committee was told the measure is meant to provide reassurance rather than to change recognition rules.

No vote was taken and no hearing was scheduled; the resolution remains introduced and on the committee wall pending any future action, testimony or amendment.