Senate committee hears opposition to bill changing pay plans for some state sworn officers

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 25, 2045 heard testimony on Senate Bill 58, legislation that would require changes to pay plans for certain state law-enforcement officers and firefighters.

The Department of Human Resources opposed the bill in testimony, saying the proposal would interfere with collective bargaining and contains conflicting timing provisions that would be difficult to reconcile with current contracts and bargaining schedules. The department also urged the committee to request a fiscal note to estimate any cost implications.

Commissioner Beth Fassnidgee, Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, told the committee, “we don’t support this bill. It is getting in the middle of collective bargaining,” and said pay plans and related changes must normally be bargained under state law. John (director of labor relations), a department labor-relations official, added that “this bill does directly undermine the collective bargaining relationship ... by inserting itself into what is a mandatory subject to bargaining under the State Employee Labor Relations Act, specifically wages.”

Witnesses explained that differences in step pay plans for various sworn positions stem from prior negotiated trade-offs. John said the accelerated step schedule used by the Vermont Troopers Association was the result of past bargaining concessions in which annual pay increases were exchanged to create a faster step progression.

Staff from the Department of Human Resources told the committee that about 11 sworn law-enforcement positions exist outside the Vermont State Police (for example, Fish and Wildlife investigators, some Office of Professional Regulation officers and Attorney General investigators); those counts were described as approximate. Department staff also said the Vermont State Police face higher recruitment pressure: Doug Pine, a Department of Human Resources staff member, told the committee that the Vermont State Police currently show a 21.2% vacancy rate, “so 45 vacancies,” while he could not find comparable vacancy counts for game wardens or motor vehicle inspectors.

Committee members pressed the department on retirement and pay-timing issues. The witnesses clarified that retirement-group rules and statutory retirement ages are set by the legislature, and that the retirement framework (including Group C and later changes) is separate from negotiated pay plans. Department witnesses said that because the legislature sets retirement-group rules, any mismatch between a pay-step schedule and a retirement-age threshold can create situations in which some workers would have less time to reach top-step pay before reaching mandatory retirement.

Committee members also pointed to perceived anomalies in the bill’s timing language. The bill text, as read during testimony, included an implementation date of July 1, 2025, while the committee was told the current collective-bargaining agreements generally run through June 30, 2026, creating a potential mid-contract conflict if the bill were enacted as written.

Several senators said they want to address the underlying inequity the bill seeks to fix but expressed concern that statutory changes to pay plans could inappropriately preempt collective bargaining. Witnesses said the state and unions have discussed pay-step and retirement issues repeatedly during bargaining cycles and that the parties are preparing to reconvene a working group after a recent request from the Vermont State Employees Association.

No formal vote on Senate Bill 58 was taken during the hearing; the session consisted of departmental testimony, member questions and committee discussion. Department witnesses recommended that the committee request a fiscal note and consider convening the previously-discussed working group or pursue solutions through collective bargaining.

The committee recessed after the testimony and indicated it would take further procedural steps later in the session.