Senate Government Operations committee debates Executive Order O1-25; former senator urges bill instead of EO

The Senate Government Operations Committee met to consider Executive Order O1-25, an administration proposal to elevate the Department of Public Safety to an agency and create a secretary and deputy secretary. Former Sen. Jeanette White, an invited witness, recommended the committee vote against the executive order and instead draft a bill so the Legislature can shape the new agency’s structure and related governance issues.

White told the committee, “my recommendation is that you vote against the EO and create a bill, not because of opposition to the creation of the agency, but because you can have input into the structure and work with the governor's office and others to create the best agency possible.” Attorney Jay Johnson, representing the administration, said the EO was intended as “the art of the possible” — a narrower, administratively simpler change to elevate public safety without reopening broader, controversial reorganizations previously debated in 2022.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the choice as a trade-off between speed and deliberation. Allowing the EO to stand would enact the structural change more quickly; voting it down and advancing a bill would give senators, stakeholders and affected agencies time to take testimony, refine department and division boundaries and address unresolved issues such as technology governance and where emergency medical services (EMS) should sit within state government.

Most testimony and discussion focused on three areas. First, structure: White and other committee members said S.155 (the 2022 Senate draft that previously proposed an agency) contains more detailed transition language than the EO, and they urged careful decisions about which functions and divisions report to a newly created secretary. White argued that some elements now grouped with fire safety (for example, HAZMAT and technical rescue teams such as USAR and swift-water rescue) better belong under emergency management. She also suggested creating divisions or departmental-level homes for units such as special investigative units and the Vermont Center for Information and Crime (VCIC) so law-enforcement functions beyond the Vermont State Police would not be subsumed by a single commander.

Second, technology and telecommunications oversight: White repeatedly urged that the committee use this reorganization as an opportunity to build centralized governance for radio and other critical communications systems. She recommended establishing a central council — modeled in concept on the Public Utilities Commission — to review IT and telecommunications plans for redundancy, resilience and integration across state systems and regional dispatch centers. White said the current patchwork of boards and purchases leaves dispatch and interoperability “a mess” and that a central planning body should approve major plans rather than individual agencies acting alone.

Third, EMS placement and funding: White and other speakers debated whether EMS belongs in a public-safety agency or should remain within the Department of Health. White said EMS presently lives in the Department of Health and that many local EMS providers are struggling financially; she told senators she believes EMS is “more part of public health” and should not be moved into a law-enforcement- and fire-centered agency. Other senators observed that some funding opportunities and grants (for example, mobile integrated health grants) come through health-sector channels.

Fiscal and personnel notes provided to the committee: A Joint Fiscal/DHR summary shared with the committee noted the EO does not create new positions but may require converting some Department of Public Safety positions from classified to exempt status; DHR reported no current intent to change compensation for those positions. Committee members discussed a modest rebranding cost estimate (signage) between $7,000 and $14,000 and an estimated total increase in salaries for a secretary and deputy secretary of about $32,000.

No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Committee members voiced three procedural options: (1) approve the EO and allow it to go into effect if neither chamber rejects it, (2) vote the EO down and work to pass a bill this session, or (3) vote the EO down and use the next session to draft a more comprehensive bill based on S.155. Senators debated timing constraints: several members noted a short legislative calendar window (town meeting and crossover deadlines) that could make passing a detailed bill this session difficult.

Administration position: Attorney Jay Johnson told the committee the administration preferred the EO as written because it represented a narrower, achievable change after controversial elements were removed from prior drafts. “We were going again with the art of the possible,” she said, describing the EO as an effort to accomplish the basic structural elevation without reopening more contentious transfers of functions such as DMV, Liquor and Lottery or Fish and Wildlife law-enforcement elements.

Next steps: Committee members did not reach a final decision at the hearing. Several senators expressed willingness to work from S.155 as a starting point for a committee bill if the committee chooses the legislative route; others said they prefer to allow the EO to take effect and pursue refinements later. Committee staff indicated they will circulate White’s written notes and any draft language she provides for a proposed central technology council.

Ending: The committee scheduled further consideration in the coming week; members said they hope to decide whether to advance a resolution/objecting motion against the EO, or instead to allow the executive order to proceed while preparing legislation to refine agency structure in a future session.