House General & Housing committee reports 7–4 straw poll to concur with S.230 after VSEA testimony on solicitation at correctional facilities

The House Committee on General & Housing voted in a straw poll on May 19 to recommend concurrence with Senate amendments to S.230 after hearing testimony from the Vermont State Employees Association.

Steve Howard, representing the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA), told the committee the state has maintained a general facilities solicitation policy since the 1970s but that the Department of Corrections (DOC) "has adopted exactly 0 policy," leaving parking lots at correctional facilities without specific rules and allowing other unions to solicit near employees arriving for or leaving work. "This can't be possible," Howard said, recounting member complaints about rival‑union solicitation that he described as harassing.

The amendment in S.230 would require the three parties identified in the bill to meet and report back to the Legislature, a step Howard said would keep the conversation moving even though the DOC commissioner already has authority to implement policy. "The language basically just says that you'll meet with the 3 parties... and we will report back to you what the conclusion of that discussion is," he said.

Committee members pressed clarifying questions about the legal landscape and exceptions in the existing State Facilities policy. A member read relevant provisions from the current policy (cited in committee as effective 02/03/2000), noting a general prohibition on solicitation on state property but a carve‑out for "solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by the State Employee Labor Relations Act or the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the state of Vermont and the VSEA." The committee discussed whether that exception would allow competing unions to solicit in parking lots of other state buildings and whether the DOC should adopt a stricter, facility‑specific rule.

Several members said the amendment only compels parties to confer and report and does not itself create a DOC policy. "It tells them to talk, which they already did," one member said, questioning the amendment's practical effect if the commissioner could already enact a rule. Howard and others answered that requiring a formal meeting and report would raise the issue for legislative consideration and could prompt DOC action.

The committee then took a straw poll on two procedural options: to concur with Senate amendments (leaving the paragraph in place) or to concur with a further amendment that would strike the paragraph. The chair announced the totals as 7 votes to concur and 4 votes to concur with the further amendment; the chair characterized the result as a 7–4–0 straw poll and instructed that the committee report concurrence to the House floor.

The committee did not take a formal roll‑call vote on final passage and characterized the action as a recommendation to the floor; members discussed who would present the committee report on the House floor. The chair said leadership had been asked to accelerate consideration and expressed hope the Senate would not require the bill to traverse additional committees before a floor vote.

Committee members also noted there was no Senate committee vote yet on a separate landlord‑tenant item listed on the agenda and closed the meeting after housekeeping remarks.

What happens next: The committee will report the committee recommendation (straw poll result) to the House floor; any formal concurrence or further amendment would be resolved through the House and Senate floor processes and any subsequent committee referrals.