State game wardens, other Group C officers press lawmakers on pay-step inequity; committee adopts resolution 3-2

Members of the Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee on Feb. 28 heard hours of testimony about long-standing pay-step and retirement inequities for law-enforcement and firefighter employees classified in the state’s Group C retirement system, and voted 3-2 to advance a committee-sponsored resolution to pursue draft legislation and further review.

Kelly Price, senior state game warden with the Vermont Warden Service, told the committee that wardens and other non-Vermont State Police (VSP) Group C employees are “unfairly subsidized” by the structure of their pay and retirement systems. Price said those employees are on a slower step-pay schedule tied to a 20-year retirement window and “must work over 10 years longer” in some cases to reach the same step progress troopers do under a faster schedule. “We were promised parity decades ago and they never came,” Price said.

The disparity is not, Price and other witnesses said, primarily a recruitment or retention problem but a parity issue tied to how step progression interacts with the retirement system. Price described one bargaining offer his group made — an 18-year step progression, a two-year pause on cost-of-living adjustments and a two-year pause on reclassifications — that he said would let members reach their maximums inside the retirement window; he said that offer was rejected in past bargaining.

Christopher Hoare, president of the Vermont Police Association, outlined precedent and legal history for creating smaller, distinct bargaining units. Hoare pointed to a 1969 VSEA petition and a later legislative-created unit (S.220) and a labor board decision as evidence the legislature and labor-relations processes have previously enabled separate units. “One party wants it. One party is willing to give up almost anything to get it, but the other party just doesn't want to give it,” Hoare said, describing the standstill he sees in bargaining.

John Breyer, director of labor relations at the Vermont Department of Human Resources, said the state’s concern centers on preserving collective bargaining processes. He described the 2011 Vermont Labor Relations Board determination that creating smaller units of an existing bargaining group can constitute “over-fragmentation,” and noted the state has previously negotiated subset issues within larger units. Breyer said he did not have an official departmental position in the hearing on whether a new certified bargaining unit should be created but explained how the labor board has treated fragmentation in the past.

Committee members asked staff to follow up with the Department of Human Resources, the Joint Fiscal Office for potential fiscal notes, and other interested parties. Senator Rebecca White and other members expressed reluctance about legislating pay scales directly but signaled openness to exploring options that would return unresolved matters to bargaining, including statutory steps to enable a distinct bargaining unit if legally appropriate.

The hearing also included a draft resolution and a revised sponsorship instruction from legislative counsel Michael Churnick asking the committee to be listed as the sponsor of draft legislation. The committee voted to approve the resolution as a committee-sponsored item; the chair announced the resolution “passed 3-2.” The transcript did not record individual roll-call votes for the tally.

The testimony highlighted specific operational and financial details raised by witnesses: Price said the Warden Service comprises roughly 40 wardens, and that, on average, a warden’s district covers several towns (he estimated roughly one warden per 10 towns, depending on clusters). Price and others noted that recent changes to retirement rules raised mandatory retirement ages in Group C from 55 to 57, and that some bargaining-unit members have increased employee contributions into Group C to “over 10%” of salary. Price and Hoare urged the committee to consider enabling a distinct bargaining unit to allow law-enforcement-specific issues to be negotiated without being subsumed in a 5,000–6,000-member unit.

The committee indicated it will reconvene the matter with additional participants: representatives from the Department of Human Resources, Joint Fiscal, the State’s Attorneys’ Association (suggested), and VSEA or other bargaining representatives as needed. The committee also directed staff to circulate the draft resolution and related documents to key legislators and to obtain a fiscal estimate if the committee pursues statutory changes.

Votes at a glance: the committee passed a committee-sponsored resolution to advance the draft legislation and request further review and fiscal analysis; the resolution passed on a 3-2 vote, with individual members not recorded on the public transcript.

The issue will return to the committee’s agenda with requested follow-up information, including the Department of Human Resources’ formal position on unit certification and any fiscal notes prepared by Joint Fiscal.