Witnesses urge caution on H.1 change to ethics-consultation requirement

A Statehouse committee heard more than two hours of testimony Friday on H.1, a bill that would exempt the House and Senate ethics panels from a statutory requirement to consult the Vermont State Ethics Commission on complaints the commission refers to those panels.

Will Stevens, an appointee to the Vermont State Ethics Commission and a former legislator, told the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee that the commission had asked the legislature to delay immediate action on H.1. "I hope you've all received the Ethics Commission letter that we sent earlier this week in which we asked you to delay immediate action on h 1," Stevens said, and urged the committee to allow more time for deliberation so a range of perspectives can be heard.

The commission's executive director framed the consultation requirement as a narrow, procedural step intended to promote consistent interpretation of the state code of ethics across branches. "The purpose of this requirement is just to make sure that state code of ethics is being applied equally across government and interpreted in the same manner," the director said, describing the consultation as confidential and nonbinding.

Opponents of H.1 who testified included the Vermont League of Women Voters and the advocacy group Campaign for Vermont, both of which said eliminating the consultation requirement or fast-tracking the bill would reduce transparency and public trust. Dottie Ricks of the League said, "We oppose the passage of H-one. This bill does not seem to advance knowledge and transparency." Ben Kinsley of Campaign for Vermont described the commission's structure as intentionally independent and said Vermont has lagged on ethics enforcement until recent reforms.

Legislative counsel told the committee that the legislature's constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its members remains central to how the code of ethics operates. Counsel said the statute's current language — which calls for consultation with the commission — was not an accidental insertion and that the legislature retains sole authority over core legislative functions. "You make errors all the time. You do. And you fix them," counsel said when asked why the statutory language might be changed.

Academic and former ethics officials who testified said comparable systems in other states use a consultative, nonbinding role for ethics commissions to promote consistency and to educate receiving entities about nuanced interpretations of the code. Thomas ("TJ") Jones, who teaches governmental ethics and previously led ethics agencies in other states, told the committee, "Consistency and predictability is a very important part" of a functioning ethics system.

Witnesses and committee members discussed specific parts of practice the consultation addresses, using gifts and hiring recommendations as examples of interactions that commonly fall outside "core legislative functions" and thus into the commission's advisory role. The commission's staff said in practice it often provides guidance within days and that the 60-day window in statute was intended as an outer limit, not as a typical delay: "In my experience, we get complaints out quickly, like, within 2 or 3 days," the director said.

Committee members asked questions about constitutional separation of powers, timing language in the statute, and whether the commission should be described in statute as "within the executive branch for administrative purposes" or as an independent agency. Multiple speakers recommended a narrow fix — clarifying in statute that the commission is administratively placed within the executive branch but independent in function — as a way to address separation-of-powers concerns without removing the consultation requirement.

No formal vote or committee decision was taken during the hearing; members signaled they will continue work on amendments and on related budget and scheduling items. The committee paused formal testimony to take up other agenda items and said it would reconvene for further deliberations.

Ending: The committee received written and oral submissions from multiple stakeholders and directed staff to continue drafting and circulating amendment language. Committee members emphasized they want more time for deliberation and public input before taking formal action on H.1.