Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee hears support for amendment to reduce pay for state's attorneys not licensed to practice
Summary
Witnesses told the Government Operations Committee the amendment would align pay treatment for state's attorneys with sheriffs and ease ethical and workload burdens when an elected prosecutor cannot practice; sponsor to offer amendment on third reading the next day.
Chair Mr. Trik convened the Government Operations Committee on April 28 to gather feedback on a budget amendment that would reduce the salary of a state's attorney who is not licensed or authorized to practice law, an amendment the chair said would be offered by Senator Hardy on third reading the following day.
Rutland County State's Attorney Ian Sullivan testified he supports the amendment. "For all those reasons, I I personally support the amendment," Sullivan said, laying out four connected points: the amendment would create pay equity with a prior statute affecting sheriffs; state's attorneys carry caseloads and supervise others while practicing; there is no robust plan to redistribute caseloads if an elected prosecutor cannot practice; and the Vermont rules of professional conduct bar non-attorneys from supervising attorneys.
Sullivan told the committee that the body previously passed "32 BSA 11 82," which provides for reductions in sheriff compensation when certification levels are lacking, and said the amendment would extend similar equity to elected prosecutors. He added that neighboring counties can sometimes provide short-term caseload relief under memoranda of understanding but that taking on another county's files imposes a significant burden on already busy prosecutors.
Tim Peters Dumont, introduced to the committee by the chair as the department's budgetary head, said his department also supports the amendment and urged that its effective date be "on passage" so any savings could accrue in the current fiscal year. "I support this amendment. I think it's important," Peters Dumont said, and he outlined budget figures as presented to the committee. He said the budgeted figure (quoted in testimony) was $154,000 and estimated the amendment could yield "about $46,200 of savings, for an attorney" if the reduction were applied.
Committee members pressed for clarity on the amendment's wording, specifically whether "not licensed" and "not authorized to practice" create distinct categories. Witnesses pointed to a Vermont law-clerk practice rule that can authorize a person pending bar admission to provide some legal services without being fully licensed, which may explain the draft language.
Members also flagged practical implementation questions, including who would cover the redistributed caseload, the ramp-up time for replacement prosecutors, and how any vacancy or carry-forward savings would be accounted for in appropriations. Peters Dumont said he had discussed sheriff-related savings with Joint Fiscal and recommended transparency about any carry-forward, while a member suggested the amendment's savings would likely be "de minimis."
The chair said he would briefly address the amendment on the Senate floor the next day and would communicate with the sponsor about effective-date language. The committee recessed and planned to reconvene at 4:00 p.m.
The committee record shows testimony in favor of the amendment from a county state's attorney and the department budget head, and a number of operational and ethical concerns that members said should be clarified before final action.
