Committee shelves H.349 security-board proposal, asks staff to survey state employees on building safety

The Corrections & Institutions Committee on Wednesday discussed H.349, a bill that would create a state building security board and transfer responsibility for security in state buildings from the Department of Buildings and General Services and, for courthouses, from the Supreme Court.

The committee heard testimony from BGS and from state employees represented by the Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA). Committee members said the courts raised a constitutional concern, arguing that court operations and courthouse security fall under the Supreme Court’s oversight and that moving that responsibility to a separate board could implicate constitutional issues.

Members said there is not sufficient appetite to advance the bill this session but that security for state employees remains a live issue. Instead of pursuing the bill now, committee members agreed to pursue more information and to convene staff, BGS and employee representatives to develop a shared survey of state employees. The committee asked two members to work with staff and BGS to set up the survey and report back to the committee.

Discussion focused on where workers feel unsafe and the kinds of measures that might reduce risk without changing operational control. Committee members described concerns about employee safety in parking lots and at building exteriors as well as the interior security functions that BGS and courts currently provide. Members suggested a range of potential, non-legislative options to explore, including secure/controlled parking, card access, escort programs, “panic” or personal-alert buttons, blue‑light telephones in lots, and better coordination between managers and union representatives to ensure employees know the reporting process.

Committee members repeatedly recommended starting with data collection rather than drafting new statutory duties. Several members urged a joint survey conducted by BGS in partnership with the Department of Human Resources or with VSEA to capture both management and employee perspectives. Some members suggested having committee members involved in drafting the survey questions to increase trust between labor and management.

Cost and design of physical barriers such as fences also came up. Members noted that fencing large state‑office campus areas could be expensive and might conflict with design plans for areas between state buildings and waterfronts. They cited the Federal Building in Burlington as an example of a secured perimeter that includes card access and visitor screening; committee members said such measures can deter casual intrusion but do not stop a determined intruder.

Outcome and next steps: the committee agreed to keep H.349 on the table (no further work this session) and to ask two committee members to work with BGS staff and employee representatives to develop and field a joint employee safety survey. The committee also asked staff to coordinate follow‑up meetings and site visits so members can assess building layouts and parking conditions.

Context: Testimony on H.349 included presentations from BGS about current security services and from employee representatives recommending protections for staff. The courts raised separation‑of‑powers concerns about removing courthouse security from judicial oversight. Committee members emphasized preserving existing court security services while exploring building perimeter and entry improvements for state employees.