Committee reviews H.27 to expand Vermont domestic-violence fatality review commission and allow ‘near‑fatal’ reviews

The House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 22 heard testimony on H.27, a bill that would expand the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission’s membership and permit the commission to review “near‑fatal” domestic violence incidents in addition to deaths, witnesses said.

Supporters and commission staff told the committee the changes aim to bring additional perspectives to multidisciplinary reviews and to capture cases that could yield prevention lessons similar to those learned from fatalities.

Carolyn Hansen, a staff attorney in the Attorney General’s Office who works with the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission, said the panel — currently 17 unpaid commissioners who meet about six times a year — reviews domestic‑violence‑related deaths and looks for system gaps. “We try as much as possible to talk to people,” Hansen said, describing the commission’s practice of taking testimony from police, family members and other witnesses and using Office of the Medical Examiner data to identify domestic‑violence‑related deaths.

H.27 would make three principal changes: add specified seats to the commission (including a sheriff representative, a restorative‑justice specialist, and a non‑confidential state’s‑attorney victim advocate), add language directing appointing authorities to consider diversity in appointments, and expand the commission’s charge to include review of near‑fatal incidents. Hansen and other witnesses told the committee the request grew from the commission’s sense that some near‑fatal cases contain the same actionable patterns as fatalities and that survivor testimony can provide insights not otherwise available.

Charley Glisserman, policy director for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the network supports H.27 and that near‑fatal cases “provide very valuable insights into opportunities for intervention and prevention of completed homicides.” Heather Holter, co‑director of the Vermont Council on Domestic Violence, said she has served on the commission since 2007 and described cases in which survivor testimony after a near‑fatal event produced information the commission could not obtain from records or law enforcement.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several practical points. Members raised questions about how “near‑fatal” would be defined, whether the commission would be inundated with cases, and whether the commission could or should report counts and trends for near‑fatal incidents in future annual reports. Hansen and other witnesses said other states use varying definitions and that the commission expects to develop an internal standard; they also told the committee the commission already selects only a small number of cases for full in‑depth review and that the panel’s statute limits it to reviewing closed cases.

Several witnesses and committee members noted data limits. Hansen and others said there is no comprehensive statewide database that captures all near‑fatal domestic assaults, and that the Office of the Medical Examiner currently flags some deaths that appear related to domestic violence for the commission’s review; witnesses said that tracking nonfatal or near‑fatal instances as a statewide statistic would require a sustained data‑collection effort that the commission does not currently have staff or a centralized data source to perform.

Law enforcement members and witnesses urged adding a sheriff seat and stronger victim‑advocate resources. Sean Burke of the South Burlington Police Department, who serves as the commission’s law enforcement representative, told the committee sheriffs “should definitely have a seat at that table,” citing sheriffs’ role in court process assistance and locality‑specific public‑safety responsibilities. Burke also urged wider use of a lethality assessment protocol in which high scores connect survivors directly to advocates: “If they score high enough … you put them on the phone with an advocate, and the advocate tells them you’re at risk of dying,” he said.

Committee discussion also touched on the commission’s reporting cadence. The bill’s draft updates statutory language that currently describes a reporting date tied to the first year of the biennium; witnesses said the commission has been producing an annual report in practice and the committee debated whether to codify an annual deadline, change the statutory date, or leave the timing discretionary. Several lawmakers said they want the commission to avoid producing statistical trend counts for near‑fatal incidents unless a reliable data source exists and the commission can document its methods.

No formal votes or amendments were recorded during the hearing. Committee members indicated two technical changes they planned to pursue: adding the executive director (or designee) of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services as an explicit commission member, and changing the appointing authority for the proposed state’s‑attorney victim‑advocate seat to the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs so the seat aligns with the group that supervises those advocates. Committee leaders said they will follow up with the agencies for confirmation of capacity and with staff on report timing.

The committee kept the record open for follow‑up and asked staff to produce technical edits to the bill; the measure’s final text and any committee amendments were to be decided in subsequent meetings.