Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impaired Driving Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary committee reviews amendment to H.105 to add reporting on youth impaired-driving referrals
Summary
The committee reviewed language adding annual reporting requirements to H.105 on referrals to the youth substance awareness safety program tied to 0.02 impaired-driving violations and discussed outcome measures, effective dates and who imposes and administers suspensions.
The House Judiciary Committee reviewed proposed language to amend H.105 to require annual written reports on impaired-driving violations and referrals to a youth substance awareness safety program.
The amendment, read into the record by Wendell Bogrovsky of the Office of Legislative Council, would require "annually beginning on 07/01/2026, the office of the attorney general and other entities as needed shall submit a written report to the house and senate committees on judiciary related to impaired driving violations under this section containing the following: the number of persons referred to the youth substance awareness safety program, the ages of the persons referred to the program, the number of persons who successfully complete the program, the number of persons who fail the program, and the number of persons who serve suspensions imposed by the judicial bureau after failing the program." The amendment also adds a new section directing the Attorney General and the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center to propose outcome measures for impaired-driver violations.
Committee members questioned how narrowly the reporting requirement would apply. Willa, from the Attorney General's Office, clarified that "this would only relate to the 0.02 violations, the way this is written," identifying the intended scope as the low-level impaired-driving violation under discussion. Members pressed staff on whether the report should assess program efficacy in addition to counts; Wendell said the draft language was intended to allow both: the report should capture referrals and program outcomes and allow proposed outcome measures to assess effectiveness and the length of suspensions.
Committee members also discussed timing and data completeness. Staff noted that although data are tied to the fiscal year, practical reporting timelines and data-cleaning cycles mean the committee may want an effective date later than July 1, 2026; a suggestion was made to move an effective date to Oct. 1 or otherwise stage the subsection to account for data availability. Wendell explained the committee could place a different effective date into the statute or delay the subsection's effective date to allow time for complete reporting.
Members asked who imposes and who executes driver suspensions. In response, Wendell said the Judicial Bureau "impose[s] it, and then it's administered by the DMV." The committee discussed that program providers do not control suspension length because that is set in statute; the report would therefore need to separate program efficacy (which providers influence) from statutory suspension lengths.
No formal vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt. Committee staff said they would make revisions to the draft language on screen, with Ben (legislative counsel/staff referenced by members) preparing edits and the committee agreeing to give members until 11:00 to review a revised version before finalization. The meeting then moved toward adjournment.
The committee's immediate next steps in the transcript include staff edits to the draft amendment, a decision point on the effective date, and a plan to circulate a revised draft for member review before finalizing the language.
