Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the S36 Pip Language topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee discusses S.36 language change to replace “public inebriate” with statute‑defined term

3058478 · April 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members debated an amendment to S.36 to replace the outdated phrase “public inebriate” with language already used in Vermont statute — “incapacitated” or similar — and planned additional committee discussion and a possible committee amendment next week.

Lawmakers reviewing S.36 told the House Committee on Human Services they plan to update statutory language that uses the term “public inebriate,” which members said carries negative connotations and does not reflect current statutory usage.

The committee discussed replacing the phrase with language already in statute, using the term “incapacitated” (often shortened in committee conversation to “INCAP”) because that word already appears in state law and has been applied in relevant statutes. A committee member said they had drafted an amendment to strike “public inebriates” and replace it with “persons who are incapacitated,” and that the amendment may be modified further before filing.

Representative Hedrick and other members signaled support for prioritizing Chittenden County access to PIP (psychiatric intake/pre‑release) services and noted questions about process, medical exams and hospital referrals in the PIP context. Representative Rachelson is expected to bring additional questions and is considering an amendment; the committee scheduled her to meet with members next week to discuss her concerns. The chair said the committee had not identified obstacles that would block S.36’s progress but noted the bill was still subject to intercommittee conversations and potential amendments.

No formal vote was taken at the session. Committee staff said they would circulate the amendment language when finalized and consider offering it as a committee amendment if there is sufficient agreement.