Vermont Police Association president urges clearer, equitable line-of-duty death benefit in S89 testimony

Christopher, president of the Vermont Police Association, told the House Committee on General & Housing that S89 — a bill to provide survivor/line-of-duty death benefits — has improved through years of work but still requires careful drafting to ensure equity.

"The bill's come a long way. It's gotten better in my opinion," Christopher said, and he urged the committee to consider how federal and state benefits interact when defining eligibility.

Christopher said Vermont is currently the only New England state that does not provide a law-enforcement death benefit and asked the committee to review how other states structure benefits. He said employer-provided life insurance is typically treated as a separate benefit by other states and therefore not viewed as "double dipping." He offered to provide written comparisons and copies of life-insurance policy language from state collective-bargaining agreements.

On existing contractual language, Christopher said he was aware of three collective-bargaining agreements that include a special line-of-duty death benefit: the Vermont State Troopers bargaining agreement, a Department of Corrections bargaining unit, and a supervisory bargaining unit that covers state police lieutenants and certain supervisors. He said some municipal or specialty officers (for example, certain liquor-and-lottery sergeants) may not be covered by those contractual provisions.

Committee members pressed for specifics about who qualifies. One member asked what "certified by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council" means in practice. Christopher explained certification is an individual credential required to serve as a law-enforcement officer in Vermont, with multiple certification levels; an officer hired from another state must obtain Vermont certification to be under Vermont jurisdiction. He and panelists agreed that an individual who has been decertified — whether because of lapsed training, retirement, or disciplinary action — would not be eligible under the bill as written.

Members also asked about moonlighting and private-security work. Christopher said the bill's language that benefits apply when a person is "working under the scope of the department" would generally exclude private, off-duty security work unless the municipality had contracted the officer for that specific duty.

The committee and witness discussed whether embedded mental-health professionals, peer counselors or volunteers who ride with officers should be included. Christopher suggested using a term such as "emergency services support staff" to capture embedded social workers or community resource personnel while acknowledging questions about employers, pay, training, and certification. Several members said the committee should ask counsel to draft precise language for these edge cases to avoid unintentionally broadening eligibility.

Christopher repeatedly offered to provide additional documentation, including the life-insurance policy excerpts and interstate comparisons he referenced, to help the committee refine the bill's language.

The committee did not take a vote on S89 during the session; members said they may request counsel to draft definitions or clarifying language ahead of a markup session.