House Judiciary debates statewide —accountability docket— language after mixed Rutland rollout

Montpelier — The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday wrestled with how narrowly to define a proposed statewide "community accountability" docket in H.937, after witnesses described a bumpy rollout of a Rutland pilot that differs from the more intensive Chittenden County model.

Jay Johnson, the governor's general counsel, told the panel the amendment seeks to reproduce the Chittenden pilot's benefits—faster case resolution and better connections to human services—but cautioned that "only the judiciary can do those things," meaning courts control judges, staff and courtroom space and cannot be mandated by the executive branch. He also said the governor and legislature provided funding, noting "the governor did allocate $500,000" and that the BAA included reimbursement for the Burlington effort.

The Chittenden pilot relied on daily courtroom time, a dedicated prosecutor and judge, an on-site case manager and clinician, and signed releases that allowed providers and defense teams to share information, witnesses said. Committee testimony credited that approach with clearing large numbers of pending files: witnesses repeatedly cited Chittenden's initial target of roughly 100 people with five or more dockets.

Rutland's approach, by contrast, grew out of local stakeholder decisions. Witnesses said Rutland began with about 30 people meeting the five-plus docket threshold (later expanded by some stakeholders to 4+ to reach a larger pool) and scheduled one full weekday plus an additional alternating day'amounting to roughly 18 working days during the pilot period rather than a continuous five-day surge. Rutland proponents said the county selected that schedule after accounting for courtroom availability, assigned or contract defense counsel calendars and proximity of a correctional center that reduced transport needs.

That local tailoring prompted questions from lawmakers. Several members asked whether the statute should require fidelity to the Chittenden template (for example, five days per week with a dedicated judge and prosecutor) or preserve flexibility for counties to adapt the model to local caseloads and resources. Tom Zote, chief superior judge, and other judiciary witnesses warned that requiring five-day schedules without funding to backfill judges'other duties could divert judicial resources from other dockets unless the legislature funded retired-judge backfill or similar measures.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed early outcome data and measurement. Rutland stakeholders reported early process results: six defendants resolved in initial hearings translating to 35 cases closed and additional changes of plea scheduled that would resolve a larger set (one witness referenced 61 cases tied to scheduled pleas). But both judiciary and executive witnesses emphasized that longer-term recidivism and program effectiveness will require follow-up data over months.

Operational barriers came up repeatedly: transportation costs and coordination (witnesses described a phone-tree system managed by the Division of Emergency Management that can call in state police, sheriffs and DMV), overtime expenses for officers, and the difficulty of aligning assigned-defense and contract-counsel calendars across counties.

Several witnesses and the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs urged creating a program coordinator position charged with convening stakeholders, compiling weekly operational reports, tracking transports and staffing, and advising counties on rollout and benchmarks. Kim McManus of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee the role could identify when to surge resources to a county and said dedicated prosecutors (as in Chittenden) can be accommodated with internal coverage of caseloads while the program runs.

Lawmakers signaled they wanted statutory language tied to performance goals rather than an inflexible day-count. "If the priority is bumping down cases," Jay Johnson said, "not really a connection to services," he warned that meaningful executive-branch involvement requires an investment that is worth the results the judiciary and communities expect.

The committee asked stakeholders and staff to meet after the hearing to draft clearer statutory text that balances fidelity to effective components (consistent judge time, on-site providers, transport solutions, designated prosecutor) with county-level flexibility. Members also asked for follow-up data and proposed benchmarks for reduced backlog and service linkages. No vote was taken; the committee adjourned with the possibility of reconvening to refine the amendment language.

Next steps: stakeholders and committee staff will meet to refine language; committee members requested clearer statutory benchmarks and regular reporting on outcomes and transport/cost impacts.