Senate committee reviews Executive Order O1-25 to reorganize public safety into an agency

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 11 reviewed Executive Order O1-25, which would reorganize the Department of Public Safety into an Agency of Public Safety, and compared the executive order to S.155, the Senate-passed 2022 reorganization bill that did not become law. Committee members pressed legislative counsel and union representatives for details about statutory changes, appointment authority and potential costs.

The review centered on how the executive order’s organizational chart and duties compare with the earlier bill and what statutory cleanup would be required for the agency to exist without inconsistencies in state law. "There were over 200 statutes that would be affected by this change," Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, told the committee, noting that some fixes are technical while others would require action by the General Assembly.

Anderson told the committee that S.155, as proposed in 2022, would have created two departments under the new agency — a Department of Fire Safety and Emergency Management and a Department of Law Enforcement — and would have included a Division of Support Services. He said the executive order covers many of the same areas but organizes them differently, for example by naming separate divisions for radio technology and a Vermont Forensics Laboratory with specific sections for chemistry, biology, toxicology, physical comparison, quality control and evidence management.

Committee members repeatedly asked where the executive order departs from the bill passed by the Senate in 2022. The executive order, Anderson said, adds or elevates some organizational units that S.155 did not explicitly create — including an office of community collaboration and empowerment and a named Division of Vermont Forensics Laboratory — and it proposes moving some discrete offices into division-level status.

Members asked how those changes would affect who appoints and supervises division leaders. "The executive order states that all executive directors and directors shall be appointed by the secretary with the approval of the governors," Anderson told the committee, reading the executive order’s terms as presented to the panel. Committee members said that change could shift hiring authority and consolidate executive power over positions that may now be filled by competitive hiring.

Steve Howard, who identified himself in the meeting as an executive director-level representative of state employee unions, told the committee the union position is acceptable "as long as it just changes a commissioner to a secretary, a deputy commissioner to a deputy secretary and leaves everything the way it is now." Howard said broader consolidation of law enforcement into a single agency was controversial among members of law enforcement unions in 2022: "Moving law enforcement professionals from one agency where they are specialized into another agency ... is very controversial and ... overwhelmingly opposed by our law enforcement members."

The committee discussed program-specific details raised by the executive order, including transitional provisions for the 9-1-1 board. Anderson said S.155 included a provision to transfer assets, liabilities, appropriations and positions to the agency while maintaining the board’s independence for other purposes unless otherwise specified by law. Members also asked about internal affairs investigations, the status of sheriff/warden units such as DMV or Fish & Wildlife law enforcement, and whether specialized positions (forensics, radio technology, offender registry staff) would remain embedded in their current operational contexts.

Several senators said they wanted additional briefings before taking further action. The committee chair (Senate Committee on Government Operations) proposed inviting former Senator Janet White, who carried the 2022 bill, and administration officials back to explain the policy goals and the administration’s stated reasons for using an executive order rather than pursuing the broader statutory reorganization. Committee members also requested research on the legal basis that allows an executive order to take effect 90 days after issuance unless either legislative body disapproves, and a fiscal note outlining costs such as rebranding, new leadership salaries, and other administrative expenses (a fiscal note was not available at the Feb. 11 meeting). The chair said the committee may reconvene next week to continue the conversation.

No formal motions or votes on the executive order or related legislation were recorded during the meeting; the committee did not take final action.