Vermont defender general asks Appropriations Committee to make eight limited‑service positions permanent

Matt Valerio, Vermont defender general, told the House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 27 that last year an appropriation intended to fund eight positions was placed in the budget base but the positions themselves remained limited‑service and were not converted to permanent status.

Valerio said the amount referenced in his office’s memo — "the 1.283,000 that was we were requesting along the way" — was placed in the budget base but the corresponding positions were not changed from limited service to permanent. "So we got the money in the base of the budget, but we didn't get the positions," Valerio said.

Why it matters: Valerio said limited‑service posts are harder to recruit for and retain because candidates avoid jobs with expiration dates. He told the committee the office had previously sought positions from the personnel pool but was directed by administration leadership to pursue a budget adjustment instead. He said converting the eight positions to permanent status would align the funding already in the FY2026 base with the personnel authorities needed to hire and retain staff.

Valerio described the office’s employment status rules: "By statute, everybody who works for the defender general is an exempt," he said. He also said non‑lawyer staff in the Defender General’s Office are covered by the office’s collective bargaining agreement even though they are nominally exempt from the classified system.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the funding was one‑time originally and whether the funding would remain in the FY2026 base. Valerio said the appropriation was placed in the base and his office assumes it will continue in FY2026. Members also discussed that attorneys in the office may be terminated more easily than classified staff, while non‑attorney staff have some additional processes because they are covered by the office’s collective bargaining agreement.

No formal committee vote or formal action on the request was recorded in the meeting transcript. Valerio said he had submitted a memo with the request and that staff would find the language in the bill (he referenced section E100 as related to positions). The committee did not record a decision during this session.

Valerio closed by saying he initially tried to obtain conversion through the personnel pool but was advised to use the budget adjustment process; committee members expressed support and asked additional questions about the history of pandemic‑era hiring and carryover funding that led to the current request.