House Appropriations reviews bill to extend $80,000 survivor benefit to law enforcement and corrections officers

At a House Appropriations Committee meeting Monday, members reviewed H.57, a bill that would expand an $80,000 survivor benefit to include sworn law enforcement officers and correctional officers and update definitions and administrative procedures for awarding the benefit.

Sophie Sedatny, counsel for the Office of Legislative Council, described the bill as "relating to survivor benefits for law enforcement officers" and said "H 57 ... seeks to make changes to the monetary benefit of $80,000 paid to the family of emergency personnel who die in the line of duty or from an occupation related illness that's presumed to have occurred in the line of duty." Sedatny said the House Committee on General and Housing recommended a strike‑all amendment that adopts a version of a prior bill with several changes, including: adding corrections officers to the covered class; expanding the definitions of child, domestic partner and spouse; changing the composition of the review board; requiring survivors to request the benefit within 24 months of the death (with board discretion to extend for extenuating circumstances); and allowing the treasurer's office up to one year to pay an award.

The bill would be known in statute as "Jessica's law," Sedatny said, and she noted that the proposal adds a statutory definition of "correctional officer" (as an employee of the Department of Corrections whose duties include supervision or monitoring of persons under sentence, parole or probation and who has received training).

Joint Fiscal Director Chris Root told the committee the fiscal note is posted to the committee page and said lawmakers cannot precisely predict the bill's cost. "We don't know specifically what this bill would cost because it's impossible for us to predict the frequency of these, line of duty deaths and, the survivor applications," Root said. He described the survivor fund's recent activity: the fund had gone many years without a claim but has had several recent submissions, including one recently approved and two pending applications. Root said the treasurer's office requested $220,000 in the biennial appropriations act to top up the fund and leave a cushion for additional claims.

Root said the emergency personnel survivor fund does not have a dedicated revenue source; it is financed by transfers from the general fund, accrued interest and any contributions. He warned that expanding eligibility "does have the potential to lead to more claims being submitted in the future," and that additional demand would fall to the general fund by default if the survivor fund is exhausted. Root also noted that the bill removes a public member and per diem compensation from the benefit review board but said that change is unlikely to produce material savings because the board convenes infrequently.

Committee members asked whether the expanded class of beneficiaries—state police, sheriffs and other sworn officers—already receive survivor or insurance benefits that would overlap with the $80,000 payment. Sedatny said the bill would generally cover "anyone that is, certified by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council." Committee members and staff agreed they did not have complete information in the committee record about what other survivor or insurance benefits various agencies provide and asked staff to follow up with House General and other committees for testimony and clarification.

Several members emphasized that the proposal does not contain an appropriation. Root reiterated the principal policy change is the expansion of eligible employee classes and the 24‑month filing requirement; the bill does not increase the $80,000 benefit amount. The bill also contains language permitting the emergency board to transfer funds to pay an award if the General Assembly is not in session and gives the state treasurer up to 12 months to complete a payment.

Committee members did not vote on H.57 at the meeting; staff said they expected to decide whether to vote later in the week and requested follow‑up on outstanding questions about other benefits available to covered officers.