House Education reviews bill to expand hazing, harassment and bullying advisory council

On Tuesday, April 22, the Vermont House Committee on Education heard testimony on H.130, a bill that would expand the membership and clarify the duties of the statead advisory council on hazing, harassment and bullying prevention in schools.

Supporters told the committee the council, created in statute in 2012, has been largely dormant and that updating its membership, responsibilities and reporting requirements could help produce updated model policies, regular reviews and training resources schools currently lack.

Rebecca McBroom, general counsel for the Vermont National Education Association and newly elected chair of the Hazing, Harassment, and Bullying Prevention Advisory Council, described the group as "dormant for at least two years" before being reconvened and said H.130's changes adadadto expand members and define duties would likely make it easier for the council to move forward. "Iad think that trainings are really important," McBroom said, while also warning that expanding the council risks making consensus harder and asked how additional work would be funded and implemented through school personnel.

Charlie Glessmerman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the network supports revisions to the council that would increase representation of students, advocates for communities disproportionately affected, and school personnel who can advise on implementable policies. Glessmerman said the revised billadadspecifies reporting and hearing responsibilities that could better inform future legislative recommendations and resourcing.

Faith Hartman, executive director and general counsel at the Vermont Human Rights Commission (HRC), provided historical and operational context: the HHB advisory council was established in statute in 2012 and last issued a report around 2016, while the model HHB policy schools rely on was last updated in 2016. Hartman described the HRC as a designated state agency to which harassment complaints may be filed and said the commission's investigations show a rise in both frequency and severity of school harassment complaints. "No Vermont student should feel threatened or be discriminated against while enrolled in a Vermont school," Hartman quoted from Title 16, section 570, and said that the HRC has seen cases involving race, disability, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Hartman provided data from the commission's recent work: the HRC completed nine school harassment investigations in the past two years, with settlement amounts in that period ranging from $10,000 to $175,000 in cases where settlement occurred before litigation. As of her testimony, the HRC reported 92 active cases across its jurisdiction, about 12 of which were active school harassment investigations; Hartman said six families were waiting for the HRC to draft complaints the office had accepted for investigation.

Committee members asked about the proposed council size (the draft bill lists about 18 appointees), the risk that a large membership could slow progress, how the council would advise the Agency of Education versus provide direct guidance to schools, and whether positions on the council should allow designees (the Vermont NEA requested that the teacher slot allow a designee because classroom teachers often have limited capacity to serve). McBroom and Glessmerman both expressed openness to language that favors designees while still encouraging participation by those who work directly in schools.

Hartman emphasized that schools and families need more training and resources: she said few schools receive live, in-person training and many staff receive only static materials at the start of the year. The HRC has provided some trainings and investigators but lacks capacity for a statewide training program; Hartman said any plan must identify funding and agency capacity. She also noted confidentiality limits (FERPA) restrict what schools can share about disciplinary responses, which can leave families unclear about whether and how issues were addressed.

No formal vote was taken on H.130 during the hearing. Committee members asked the advisory council and stakeholder groups to survey current members and return suggested edits on the bill's membership size and other language. Several presenters said the bill's reporting and hearing requirements could help maintain focus on HHB policy updates and training needs if enacted.

The committee will consider H.130 and any amendments in future business; witnesses offered to return with additional information and stakeholder feedback.