Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H.93 plan for a Vermont veterans registry; counsel flags privacy, IT and staffing questions
Summary
Counsel reintroduced H.93, a short bill proposing a state database of Vermont veterans. The committee discussed opt‑in language, Public Records Act exemptions for personally identifying data, IT capacity, and whether to source federal data to reduce burden.
Counsel Sophie Sedat of the Office of Legislative Council provided a short‑form reintroduction of H.93, which would create a new chapter in Title 20 directing the Vermont Office of Veterans Affairs to develop and maintain a database of veterans residing in the state.
Sedat explained the bill’s core provisions: the director of the Office of Veterans Affairs would work with state agencies to develop the database; agencies should provide veteran information "to the extent practicable and consistent with state and federal law"; and any personally identifying information collected for the database would be exempt from public inspection under the Public Records Act.
Committee members asked whether the registry would be voluntary and what entities could access nonpublic data. Sedat said the draft did not explicitly specify opt‑in language and that the exemption was intended to prevent routine public data scraping; she added the bill, as drafted, would not preclude obtaining federal information consistent with state and federal law. Members also noted prior testimony from Robert Burke, director of the Office of Veterans Affairs, raising concerns about how the data would be collected and the need for IT and human‑resource support.
Members compared other states’ approaches — Sedat cited Indiana, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania as specific examples and listed a broader set of states that have registries — and discussed the PACT Act and burn‑pit registries maintained at the federal level. Several members urged counsel to clarify whether the state registry should be opt‑in and to draft long‑form language that addresses staffing and IT needs before the bill returns to committee.
What's next: Committee flagged H.93 for further work on opt‑in language, data‑sharing authority, and long‑form drafting to address IT and administrative resources; no vote was taken.
