BIG HARTMAN, executive director and general counsel of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, told the House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 7 that the agency has not received anticipated federal reimbursements tied to a HUD cooperating agreement and is seeking $25,000 in the state’s Budget Adjustment Act to cover core operations.

Hartman said the commission had budgeted to receive about $93,000 for work closed in the prior fiscal year and had been told it might receive roughly $187,000 under the HUD agreement. "We have no reason to believe that we are actually going to receive those funds," Hartman said, describing staffing cuts and recent HUD policy changes that have delayed or blocked payments to similar agencies nationwide.

Why it matters: the cooperating agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pays state agencies a per‑case amount for fair‑housing investigations and enforcement. Hartman said the commission increased its fair‑housing activity under that arrangement and that the unexpected shortfall would undermine planned enforcement, outreach and testing activities unless the state bridges the gap.

Hartman described a new HUD addendum he said includes mandatory conditions that would bar certain agency practices, including some DEI training and issuing disparate‑impact findings. "It really runs afoul of our mission, which is to advance full civil and human rights for all Vermonters," Hartman said, adding he could not sign off on provisions that contradict state law protecting categories such as gender identity.

Hartman told lawmakers the $25,000 request in the governor’s BAA is intended to fund base payroll and operating costs through the end of the fiscal year. "We only need $25,000 to make it through the year to maintain our base operating expenses," he said. He also said the commission will continue to enforce state antidiscrimination laws regardless of HUD funding and will keep dual‑filing cases with HUD where appropriate.

Committee members asked for clarifications about timing and prior payments; witnesses and members agreed funds for cases closed in FY24 had been paid and budgeted in FY25, while funds for FY25 remain unpaid. Hartman warned the commission may be subject to a new substantial‑equivalency review of agencies that provide legal protections beyond the federal baseline and said that review could jeopardize FHAP/FAP certification in future years.

The request was presented to the committee; no formal vote or action on the $25,000 request was recorded in the transcript. The committee recessed after the hearing and signaled it would take up other budget items and the FY27 proposals when available.