Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survivor and sponsors urge Vermont to adopt inclusive statutory definition of 'Gold Star' family
Summary
Rep. Mary Catherine Stone and survivor June Heston told the committee H.884 would add a clear statutory definition of 'Gold Star family' (including those who died from service‑connected injury or illness) to avoid inconsistent interpretations and barriers to recognition and benefits.
Representative Mary Catherine Stone introduced H.884, a bipartisan bill that would place a statutory definition of "Gold Star family members" into Vermont law so state programs and recognition efforts have consistent language.
Stone said the bill is intended as a housekeeping measure that does not change eligibility for existing state benefits but avoids inconsistent interpretations when other statutes or local programs reference Gold Star status.
June Heston, the surviving spouse of Brig. Gen. Mike Heston, testified about her experience after her husband died from a service‑connected illness. Heston recounted contacting a survivor outreach worker who told her, "nope. You're not gold star," illustrating how differing definitions can exclude survivors of service‑connected illness from recognition. Heston urged adoption of an inclusive definition that covers those who "died while serving or from a service‑connected injury or illness," and noted TAPS (Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors) and the Governor's Veterans Advisory Council have supported the Gold Star Family Compact.
Counsel Sophie Sedat advised the committee that a state definition would need cross‑statutory reconciliation — for example, Vermont’s current license plate statute references federal definitions (10 USC language for Gold Star plates under 23 §304) and changing the state definition could create inconsistent language unless the licensing statutes are also amended. Members discussed bundling or separately addressing transportation/DMV language and asked counsel to draft clarifying long‑form language.
What's next: Committee members supported moving forward with drafting language but flagged the need to review related statutes (license plates and transportation) to avoid inconsistent definitions; no vote was held.
