Judiciary Committee reviews H 937 amendment to expand rapid accountability dockets; branches debate control and resources

The Judiciary Committee met March 27 to continue its review of Representative Maguire’s amendment H 937, a session‑law proposal to allow counties to run short‑term "rapid accountability" dockets modeled on pilot projects.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Council walked the committee through draft 3.1, saying the amendment adds new session‑law sections that would run for two years and then repeal. Childs cited pilot findings, including that "the docket achieved a clearance rate of approximately 300%," roughly three times typical clearance rates, and described the bill’s central features: priority for defendants with five or more pending cases, operating periods of up to 90 days, dedicated judges and court staff, and required coordination among DOC, DSAS, AHS and local law enforcement.

The bill directs the state's attorney in a county to convene local stakeholders at least 30 days before a docket starts to assess needs and develop an implementation plan. It would also direct the governor and relevant agencies to designate a rapid accountability docket coordinator to track data, identify best practices and assist resource deployment. The draft enumerates specific evaluation metrics — defendants served, cases resolved and outcomes, services connected, court appearances, probation or furlough violations at 6 and 12 months, and new offenses within 6 or 12 months.

Chief Superior Judge Thomas M. Sullivan urged changes to preserve judicial control over where and how dockets operate, saying decisions about "what courts are going to hold what dockets should rest with the judiciary" and proposing edits so recommendations come to the court rather than assigning final authority to the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs. Sullivan asked that the bill specify court administrators provide courtroom space, court staff and security.

Kim McMath of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs testified the draft "balances the need for this to be county focused" while providing structure, and said the department supports the amendment so long as there is consultation with the judiciary. McMath and other prosecutors highlighted the value of having a single person or point of contact to compile and present timely data, noting the pilot’s special prosecutor helped assemble case‑level spreadsheets in real time.

Representatives of the Agency of Human Services and other stakeholders described practical limits encountered in Rutland and other counties, including very limited in‑court time that can constrain service providers’ ability to make meaningful contacts with defendants. An AHS speaker warned that, as drafted in some places, the approach "is not sustainable" without clearer agreement about court schedules and the level of executive‑branch commitment to provide ongoing services.

Members debated drafting choices aimed at preserving flexibility for counties (for example, replacing the term "proportional" with "replicable" or language that the docket be "modeled on pilot projects") and whether to require a named coordinator now or to use passive drafting that lists data to be tracked while leaving the responsible entity to be designated later. The committee also asked staff to clarify contingency funding language so it explicitly includes BAA (budget adjustment) funds; members referenced a pool of funds available to agencies ($500,000 mentioned in discussion) and stressed that implementation is contingent on funds appropriated in fiscal 2027. The amendment would repeal the new sections on July 1, 2028.

No formal motion or vote was recorded at the March 27 meeting. Committee members agreed to circulate revised language and consider a straw poll later that day or at the next meeting; the chair said a redraft would be distributed and the committee adjourned.

Ending: The committee did not take a final vote and plans to circulate draft edits for review and possibly return for a straw poll or final action in a subsequent session.