Committee hears testimony on survivor-benefits bill amid concerns about expanded beneficiary definitions and duplication of payouts

The House General and Housing Committee heard testimony Wednesday on a bill to expand state survivor benefits to additional public-safety workers, with witnesses urging clearer statutory definitions to avoid unintended payouts and potential litigation.

Ashlyn Dwayne, director of policy in the Treasurer’s Office, told the committee the statute that governs the Emergency Personnel Survivors Benefit Review Board establishes an order of payment — spouse, then child, then parent — and that broadened definitions in the committee report could change who receives a benefit first. "I would recommend ... remove the additions to the language in section 3171, subsections 2, 4, 11 and 12," Dwayne said, urging the panel to workshop the expanded definitions on the Senate side to avoid unintended consequences.

Dwayne and Deputy Treasurer Gavin Voyles said the Treasurer’s Office supports the bill’s intent but warned the expanded definitions for "child," "parent" and "domestic partner" could create hypotheticals that the statute’s payment order would not anticipate. Voyles added that the presumptions in the workers' compensation statute are "very helpful to us as a board" when evaluating claims and that aligning definitions with those presumptions would reduce ambiguity for the Review Board.

Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association, told the committee his union strongly supports expanding the state benefit to law enforcement and correctional officers and urged lawmakers to advance the bill despite unresolved technical wording. "We would not want to make the perfect the enemy of the good," Howard said, describing the measure as an equity step so that emergency medical technicians, corrections staff and law enforcement receive comparable state recognition.

Multiple witnesses addressed whether state survivor payments should be reduced when other benefits — such as life insurance or workers' compensation — are available. Dwayne said the Treasurer’s Office does not reduce the state payment when other benefits exist, noting the statute does not require offsetting other payments. The office also reported it has processed roughly three survivor-benefit applications since December, with two processed since Dwayne first testified on the bill.

Testimony also cited practical differences in private and contractual benefits. A representative of the Vermont Police Association noted many municipal officers do not receive the same optional state life insurance that some state employees have; the optional life policy is two times base salary and may be refused by some employees. Witnesses also referenced federal survivor benefits that already exist for certain categories of first responders.

Committee members pressed witnesses on where the bill’s wider definitions might produce unintended outcomes. Members noted one example raised in testimony: labeling a domestic partner who lived with a deceased employee for six months effectively equivalent to a spouse could cause that partner to receive the full state payment before a biological child, depending on how the statute is read.

The committee chair said members will hold internal discussion on the bill at tomorrow’s committee meeting and then decide whether to send recommendations to the House Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee has asked this panel to take additional testimony on "duplicity of potential benefits" before deciding whether to take the bill up.

No formal votes were recorded during the hearing on the survivor-benefits language. Committee members and witnesses indicated willingness to refine technical language in the Senate if the bill is advanced, while some unions and advocacy groups urged keeping corrections staff included in the statute.