House Appropriations hears briefing on position cap and how the administration manages a "position pool"

Amy Pope of the Joint Fiscal Office briefed the House Appropriations Committee on April 1 on how the state's position cap works and how the executive branch uses a "position pool" to reallocate long-vacant posts.

Pope told members that the annual appropriations language (referred to in the briefing as "A107") generally bars creation of new positions except temporary roles or those authorized through the joint fiscal committee or legislative processes, and that the cap covers classified and exempt positions across branches. "It's about the number of personnel," she said, describing the cap as a budgeting tool that prevents unchecked workforce growth and improves multiyear fiscal predictability.

Why it matters: the position cap shapes how agencies request staff and how appropriators estimate personal services costs. Committee members pressed for how statutory positions and grant-funded or limited-service posts are treated when they become vacant and whether the administration has de facto authority to deny fills and later reallocate slots.

Details from the briefing

Statutory hooks and sweeping vacancies: Pope said the position pool is not created by a single statute but is implemented using existing statutes. She cited the vacancy rule in 3 V.S.A. §327(b), under which "any position that's been vacant longer than 6 months ... is eliminated, unless the secretary of administration is saying that the position is essential," and an authority in 3 V.S.A. §222 that allows the secretary of administration to move vacant positions within the executive branch. "We sweep positions that have been vacant longer than 6 months, and then we can transfer them to other areas of the executive branch," Pope said.

Monitoring and exceptions: Pope described a rolling monitoring process driven by HR reports that flag vacancies older than six months; she said some positions (for example, those supporting 24/7 facilities or with special qualifications) are typically not swept so staff can return or because the role must be preserved. She emphasized that individual circumstances—leaves, temporary reassignments, or hiring delays—make sweeping decisions case-by-case.

Statute-created and grant-funded posts: When members asked whether positions created in statute are protected from being swept, Pope replied that a position that remains vacant longer than six months could be swept depending on its authorization and other caveats. She used a recent transportation example to illustrate the difference: about 26 positions created with ARPA funds were limited-service and therefore were easier to abolish when reductions occurred.

Converting limited-service roles: Pope explained two paths for making limited-service positions permanent: the legislature can authorize a permanent position, or the administration can take a position out of the pool and reauthorize it for permanent use. She noted that converting a limited-service position typically means the limited-service slot is abolished and a new permanent slot is recorded for cap purposes.

Budget predictability and reclassification costs: Committee members raised an alternative approach of tracking personal-services spending as a share of the budget rather than raw headcount. Pope recalled a prior position pilot and an associated DHR report that made it difficult to demonstrate budget neutrality for some conversions. She and members also discussed reclassification requests (FRs) that can increase costs even when headcount stays the same, making long-term budgeting less predictable.

Hiring, pay grades and classification reform: Members asked about recruitment challenges for highly specialized roles and whether pay grades and the classification system (discussed as the "Willis" effort) limit hiring. Pope acknowledged market factors, said limited-service positions receive benefits while temporary positions typically do not, and noted ongoing DHR classification work to reduce thousands of classifications.

Questions and data requests: Committee members asked for the share of positions in the pool that had been vacant more than six months; Pope said she did not have that figure and recommended requesting current operational data from the administration or DHR. Several members also asked whether anything in statute prevents the administration from leaving statute-created positions unfilled and later sweeping them; Pope said there is no automatic statutory bar unless the legislature adds one.

What happens next: Pope offered the committee a DHR website link for procedural guidance on establishing new positions and invited follow-up questions. The chair closed the briefing and reminded members of upcoming floor business and the capital bill schedule.