State's Attorneys' office backs Victim Notification Task Force recommendations; MOU and confidential victim form remain in draft

Kim McManus, with the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's, told the House Corrections and Youth Restitution Committee on April 11 that her office “is in full support of the recommendations that are provided.” She said the proposals aim to clarify statutory language and give “power back to victims,” including explicit opt-out choices.

The committee heard that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to coordinate victim communications remains in draft. McManus said all parties listed in the current draft have agreed to the proposed edits but that no one has signed the document yet because the final text is still being completed and vetted by counsel. She noted a remaining question whether the state Attorney General would also sign the document and that, if the CHS office signs on, some language (for example, references to "state's attorney victim advocates") would need editing to fit the Attorney General's criminal division.

Committee members asked why a named network was removed from the signatory list. McManus said the network “did not need to be in this MOU” because the MOU follows statutory obligations for communications with victims and the network lacks statutory obligations, so parties agreed it did not make sense to include the network as a signatory.

Several witnesses and members discussed a long-standing communication gap when defendants are arrested and then released outside regular business hours. McManus credited the group's work with prompting the Vermont State Police to draft a confidential victim-information form intended to transfer victim contact details from local law enforcement to the facility booking staff so victim advocates can be notified earlier. She described this step as “one of the most critical pieces” of the task force's progress.

Committee members pressed operational details: who would contact victims when a release is imminent, whether that contact would be automated through Vine or handled by staff, and how much time victims would have to use notification systems. McManus said the practical effect for prosecutors’ offices would be modest day-to-day change but would require updated education for victim advocates and reliable processes to record an individual victim's choice to opt out so that those preferences are respected.

When asked for a percentage of victims who opt out, McManus said she could not provide a figure from memory and would have to "canvas some folks"; the transcript records the opt-out rate as not specified.

Participants also discussed technical limits: local law-enforcement data systems (for example, Valcour) do not interoperate with the Department of Corrections' systems, which led the group to consider a paper-based form as an interim measure. Committee member Kevin said he was "under the impression that this form actually is new to the process" and described the draft as "archaic," while acknowledging that a simple paper solution could still improve timely notification if agencies confirm how the information will be entered and routed.

The committee discussed using an "intent" language to encourage the task group to continue meeting voluntarily so momentum and cross-agency cooperation are sustained; McManus said she supports keeping the group together for ongoing refinement. The session closed with thanks to witnesses and a note that related discussion would continue at a concurrent House Judiciary meeting.

The record shows the recommendations remain supported by key stakeholders, but the MOU and the victim-information form are not finalized and require legal review, final signatories and operational decisions about data entry and notification procedures before the changes can be implemented.