Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Protection Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State employees urge new security board, parking protections and policy changes after rise in threats
Summary
The Vermont State Employees Association told lawmakers frontline staff face rising threats and proposed H.349 to create a depoliticized State Board of Security, a director, dedicated funding and consideration of a state courthouse/building police force; the union also urged securing parking lots and allowing voluntary arming of probation officers.
Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association, told a joint House committee on Feb. 19 that state frontline workers face increasing threats on the job and that the state needs stronger, independent oversight and resources.
"It's an issue that is, frankly, not receiving as much attention as it should," Howard said as he described continuing concerns since the 2015 (transcript reference year not specified) murder of Lehi Sobeil, which union witnesses cited as a turning point for worker safety. He said members report more disturbances, threats and volatile encounters in offices, parking lots and when visiting clients in the field.
Howard urged passage of H.349, describing it as legislation to establish "a Vermont State Board of Security" with a director who would report to the board and provide annual reporting to the legislature and governor and an appropriation that could not be vetoed by administration leadership. In testimony he said the board would depoliticize security decisions and make independent resource requests.
The union also recommended a state building and courthouse police force under the Department of Public Safety, operating under a memorandum of understanding with the Supreme Court, to provide a consistent, sworn law-enforcement presence across state buildings and courthouses. Howard said the change would allow consistent training and staffing statewide, though he acknowledged the idea is "controversial."
Howard described specific operational concerns: returning employees walking alone to dark parking lots; caseworkers being asked to meet clients in hotel rooms with minimal protective measures; and facilities that lack on-site BGS staff. He alleged that in White River Junction a person with an automatic weapon was observed outside a state office building and that building had no BGS staff at the time; the transcript records his account as testimony, not as proven fact in the hearing.
He also urged allowing probation and parole officers to carry defensive weapons voluntarily after comprehensive training, saying 36 other states allow similar policies and that Vermont currently does not. Howard suggested the governor could direct the corrections commissioner to permit voluntary arming without waiting for legislative approval.
Committee members asked whether the union has data to support the priorities it raises. Howard said membership priorities are set through elected representatives and assemblies and that some survey data exist but are considered internal communication and not automatically sharable.
On body-worn cameras, Howard said deployment raises complex collective-bargaining and privacy questions involving storage and use of footage, and that it is an issue the union expects to bargain with administration officials.
The committee did not vote on any proposals during the session. Members and agency officials agreed to follow up in more detailed, item-specific discussions.
Ending: The joint meeting concluded and the two committees proceeded to separate rooms for further testimony; no votes were held on H.349 or the other measures discussed that day.
