Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Leave Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Appropriations reviews H.461 to codify unpaid family and bereavement leave for Vermont state employees
Summary
At its May 6 meeting, the Vermont Senate Appropriations Committee heard that H.461 would standardize definitions for state family leave, add unpaid bereavement leave for state employees and align some language with federal law; the committee moved the bill and called the roll.
On May 6, the Vermont Senate Appropriations Committee considered H.461, a bill that would standardize state employee family-leave definitions and codify unpaid bereavement leave for Vermont state employees.
Committee members were told the bill does not create paid leave but adjusts statutory language and leave definitions to make them more consistent and inclusive and to better align with federal laws. A bill presenter said the draft “entirely has to do as it's important to mention unpaid leave policies in Vermont, not paid leaves” and that the change “does grant the large more codified access to bereavement leave, but it is unpaid.”
The presenter told the committee the bill was routed to Appropriations because it affects Vermont state employees and because the sponsor had consulted several offices, saying they had reached out to “the secretary's office, ledge council, JFO” (the Joint Fiscal Office). The presenter also noted the bill includes an amendment related to economic development and contains provisions tied to safe leave and short-term family leave.
Committee members asked whether the bill expands access or only changes definitions; a presenter replied it changes definitions and “you could argue that if you now have to grant up to 2 weeks of bereavement leave, which we also said no more than 5 con continuous days, that could have some secondary, you know, financial impacts on managing Vermont State employees in that coverage. But it is unpaid for you.” The presenter also referenced prior public remarks by the governor about paid programs but reiterated that H.461 as before the committee does not establish paid leave for state employees.
After discussion the committee moved the bill. The clerk called the roll and indicated affirmative responses; the transcript records the clerk saying “yes.” The record in the hearing did not specify a named mover, a second, or a final tally in the transcript excerpt provided.
The discussion in the committee focused on statutory language and operational impacts for state employers rather than on establishing new paid benefits. No funding source or appropriation to implement paid leave was specified in the hearing record provided to the committee, and the presenter characterized the fiscal effects as indirect because the leave described would be unpaid.
The committee ended the item with procedural steps to inform the next body of jurisdiction; the transcript records a remark that the committee would inform the next council that further services were not needed and then adjourn. No implementation timeline, effective date, or additional reporting requirements were stated in the excerpt of the hearing transcript.
