Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Welcome back everyone to the House Committee on General and Housing. It's still Thursday, still April 2, and we are continuing our discussion and witnesses on S89. And our next witness is Clark Collins, is the Deputy Director of Benefits and Wellness for the Human Resources Department. Clark, can you hear us?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Yes, I can. Are you doing today?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good. Thank you. Tell us your name for the record and let's get started.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Sure. So my name is Clark Collins. I'm the director of benefits and wellness in the leave management unit for the state of Vermont Department of Human Resources.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So as you know, we're looking at S89 concerning death benefits and take it away, tell us whatever you want to tell us.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: So I looked over S89 and as far as I can tell, the language that is currently written does not truly impact state benefits. You know, we do have a life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment benefit. And, you know, as long as they are eligible state employees and they opt into the life insurance program or enroll in the life insurance program, they will receive, you know, the benefits as as they're outlined in our policy. So s 89 does not seem to really impact the state benefits as they are now or as the language is currently written.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Marc, one of the questions that's been out there is, tell us a little bit about this life insurance and accidental death policy. How much does it cost? Is it opt in? What does it cover?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Sure. So the life insurance benefit, and, you know, I I believe that there was testimony given a little bit earlier. The the life insurance benefit, you have to enroll in the life insurance benefit to get the accidental death and dismemberment benefit. They you're not that's the sort of gateway to getting the accidental death and dismemberment. But they are both programs are opt out, meaning that as long as you are you know, when you're employed, you get the life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment benefit. And unless you choose to opt out, the you know, you'll just be enrolled and the premium will will start on, you know, on your first payroll. The cost is relatively minimal. It's it's sort of it's based on salary. So it is, you know, a percentage based on salary. It's I think it's point and I'm sorry. I don't have the number directly in front of me. I can get it for you in a minute. But it's it's a percentage based on, like, per thousand dollars you make. I just as a general ballpark, you know, I'd say most people it's about a dollar or 2 a paycheck in terms of premium. So it's relatively inexpensive to participate in the life insurance. And again, it's you're automatically in unless you opt out. The percentage of those that opt out is very small. You know, it's again, you have to purposely choose not to have it. And that percentage is about it's less than 1% of our overall enrollment or overall employees choose to opt out.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: You had a question? I answered it. Yeah. Have a question.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What's the benefit, particularly the death benefit? That's what we're interested in.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Correct. So the the base life insurance benefit is two times your annual salary is paid out to who you designate as your beneficiary. Accidental death and dismemberment would include an additional two times, which means that overall it'd be four times your annual salary paid out to your designated beneficiary.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So it's four times?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Correct. The AD and D makes it four times. The base life insurance is two times.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. But when you opt in, if you're employed and you do not opt out.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Correct.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You get both the death and the get both the life insurance and the death benefits.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: That's correct.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Yes.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I have a few questions.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: If you are no longer employed, are you able to pay for that life insurance yourself?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Yes, there is a you can convert the life insurance benefit into your own personal benefit when you leave. You know at that point it's between you and the life insurance vendor to sort of make it into your own personal benefit as so it's no longer tied to the to the state.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Great. And then I think my other question is and this is an assumption that you probably do some sort of surveying of, you know, are you happy with your benefits? Are your benefits serving you? Or the less than 1% who do this who do opt out, do you have a good sense of why they're choosing to do that?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I unfortunately, I don't think I can speak to that. Generally speaking, when we do surveys about our benefits, they're more general as opposed to specific benefits. You know, when they opt out, we don't necessarily ask why they're opting out, you know, we just consider it a personal choice.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The Go ahead, Todd.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm curious to know if cancer diagnosis is tied to the work of a firefighter. Is that an accidental death for purposes of the policy?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, don't know it. I don't know the answer to that. I'd have to come back to you with that. I believe that so generally speaking, death and dismemberment is dictated by the rules of the policy as per the vendor. So currently, right now, our life insurance is through the company called the standard. When someone passes, they're the ones that would be responsible for the necessary investigation or general determination of whether it was an accidental death and dismemberment. So they would be the ones that would that would make that call. But I can find that answer out for you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that that's a good question. Naturally, since what we're looking at is we're looking at s 69 89, and the question which naturally arises is how coterminous is the coverage under the life insurance policy with debt in the line of work, of s 69 and also how it compares to the workers compensation standard. It Can is you take that can you take that on for us and get back to us perhaps with a written statement perhaps?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Yes. I I can do that research for you on my end.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I think, though I always hesitate to do it, reading life insurance policies is, you know, my favorite pastime. But I think it would probably be a good thing for you to forward to our committee assistant the policy of the standard company. Can do that

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: as well. Correct?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is that is this the standard company, whatever the hell that is?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Correct. The name of the company is called The Standard. We were previously with Securian Life, but we switched effective one one of this year to The Standard. So I will I can get you that policy document and I can get some more information as to how accidental death and dismemberment is coordinated with, especially as it relates to, you know, emergency responders or emergency personnel.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I imagine, am I right, that this insurance policy covers people who are state employees.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: That's correct.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, decide what one may negotiate for a private employee or through a contract. Does it so for example, would it cover town employees?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would it cover employees of a town?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: No. Well, unless those members are state employees. Again, they they have to be under, like, state payroll, state employees directly. So typically speaking, no, it would not cover town employees.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So they so they I'm just speculating would not cover local firefighters, volunteer firefighters, you know, who work for a fire district or something like It wouldn't cover law enforcement that aren't members of the that aren't staying with. Right?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: That's correct. That's correct.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, they may have available an insurance policy, but that's another matter. Yes?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Mister Collins, I wonder how how long have you been in this role?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I've been in this role for fourteen years.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, great. Excellent. Has the definition of dismemberment changed over that time?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I wouldn't say it's changed dramatically. What I would say is, you know, generally speaking, our policy which would include, you know, definitions do update on a relatively regular basis. But I in terms of, like, payout per, you know, depending on, you know, what what the dismemberment is and and so forth, the payout does update. I I would assume if nothing else, the dollar amount that's compensation as as it relates the disenoverment has changed over the years. But the actual definitions haven't really changed dramatically.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So it has not in any way expanded or contracted since you've been on the job?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I wouldn't say right. I wouldn't say not in any way. You know, I'm sure that it has updated but I wouldn't say that, you know, I I wouldn't say that much has changed significantly. But, know, the definitions I'm sure have changed over the fourteen or have changed over the fourteen years. But I wouldn't say, you know, you know, wholesale, the definitions have been updated.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: The reason that I'm asking is that, I I just for full disclosure, I just did a really deep dive into the changes to the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008. And so I wondered whether that the passage of that had any kind of impact on the definition of dismemberment or the impacts of dismemberment and whether the insurance industry had been responsive to it and it is actually relevant. I'm not just asking a random but I just wondered whether whether there had been any kind of ripple effect for employees on that way.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: You said 2008, correct?

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Yep.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Unfortunately, that's before my tenure so I don't necessarily so I can't necessarily speak to the state benefit. But what I will say is that in general, anytime there's any kind of federal regulation or even a state policy that gets passed, the life insurance vendors need to adapt or need to change to be able to accommodate it per, you know, they have to be compliant with federal and state regulations. So anytime that the definitions have expanded, you know, they would be included in the language of the policy.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions of clerk by members of the committee? Clark, many thanks for taking the time to talk to us, and we look forward to the policy, which I read over breakfast, and the as well as your thoughts, what you submit in terms of the relationship between benefits under S89 and workers' comp and the insurance.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Okay, will do.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you very much.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So Beth, you wanna come

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: and talk to us? I'm not sure that I have anything to add, other than what Clark has already said, but I'll introduce myself to the committee, and if you have additional questions I'll do my best. Please do. Beth Bastingy, I am the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, and you just heard from Clark Collins, and our life insurance benefit, and that includes our accidental death and dismemberment, is administered through our department at the Department of Human Resources, and Clark runs that program. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Anecdotally, have you heard from any employees a reason why they would opt out of? No. Okay. It's a very inexpensive benefit. As Marc mentioned, it's unusual for people to opt out. And when somebody starts with this state and they're doing onboarding, are all of

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: their benefits walked through or are

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: they just given a pact? What is that process? Employees do participate in an orientation program, and we do walk through their benefits. And we have a very nice benefits guide that's online, it's under 25 pages, but it displays what those various benefits are. I think as plain language as possible, as far as what the benefits are. I did print out some of the pages from our life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment, as well as I think our supplemental life insurance program, which we also added a few years back so people can buy up that life insurance so can, if they want to provide more for themselves or add additional members of their family to that policy, they can do that as well.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Can you talk a little bit about that supplemental policy, what's in it, how much it costs? Does it relate to death and dismemberment, or is it more just the life insurance?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: It's life insurance, it's not a buy up of the accidental death and dismemberment, but I don't have my, let's see what I've got. I don't think I printed that sheet out, but Park, do have any stats on the buy up program Unfortunately,

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I don't have any stats in terms of participation, but the benefit itself allows you to either increase the, again, the base life insurance is two times your annual salary. It allows you to increase that four times, six times, eight times your annual salary. You just pay additional premium. It also allows you the ability to cover your dependents and your spouse and have sort of basic life insurance coverage for them as well. But in terms of participation, I believe that there last I saw, I think there was about seven or 800 employees that participate in that. And you know, we have 8,000 plus, you know, eligible employees. So I guess there's the the math involved in there.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: At some point, I think we heard how many people how had unfortunately passed away and gotten the benefits. Do you have those numbers?

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Not off the top of my head, but I can get that for you if you give me one moment.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Died in the course of employment just in general. We don't have, I don't know what we're going to have on the cause of death or anything like that but we just have No I just want to know how many times these benefits have been dispersed.

[Clark Collins, Director of Benefits & Wellness, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Over what period of time?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: The last three years. As a part of that benefit, there's also a benefit for retirees. It's a one time death benefit, if you're fully retirement eligible, it's $10,000 And that's under the base policy,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: or is that the supplemental policy?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: That is included in your retirement, so you don't have to pay for that separately. It's paid for by the retirement office on behalf of the retirees. Two times your annual salary is pretty generous,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I would say. How was that negotiated?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I don't recall. I get it. Is that what you asked? I just, I mean, have worked with a lot of different companies and doing some negotiations, I don't think I've ever seen a death benefit, a real life benefit at 2,000.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And the death is four times.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Yeah, think generally the details aren't, it's usually the negotiations for a program like that, like when we add it in the supplemental life, it's kind of a conversation, hey, this would be a good thing to do for employees, what do you think? Yes, this would be a good thing to do, let's go out and get a policy. So it's not as detailed as when we negotiate health insurance as far as co pays or anything like that. So

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the switch that this was referred to from one insurance company to another, that's not an extensive content negotiation?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: No, it's a competitive bid process that we go through to make sure that the state of our mind is getting good value for the dollars we're spending. Certainly vendor performance is important as well, but we're also looking at prices and how they are able to manage the benefit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, it's a benefit that costs the state more than the employee pays?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Right, for the life insurance, the state pays 75% and the employee pays 25, and then the supplemental insurance is all on the employee. The state doesn't contribute to

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that. Do have any idea what the supplemental funds?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Clark can get that information for you, and I don't know if he can put that in plain language, because life insurance rates are very difficult to understand, but it is based on, pay the more you make, and the more you want to have covered, the more you're going to pay.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: for Beth? So an employee that makes $50,000 is going to pay less than an employee that makes $20,000 for the base benefit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But it's, in any case, not very much. Correct. Yeah, and the state's paying three quarters of it, right? Clark testified that it was, without getting into the details, sort of in a dollar a month kind of range. Does that make sense to you, that that's about what it is?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Yeah. It's not something, if an employee is looking at their paycheck and being like, what costs are my paychecks, what extra things am I paying for, that's not going to get them, know, it's not going to only increase their income by much. Having that be affordable is I think really important to being able to have that benefit, which we often agree that it's a really good benefit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. Are there questions with that? Commissioner? Thank you for coming. Appreciate your time. Imagine you're very busy. Our next witness is Steve Howard, who's ED of the Vermont State Employees Association, someone who's testified before. Steve, welcome.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Thank you. Good morning. I want to start by saying thank you for the work that this committee did on H57, is a very similar bill. This committee did a very deep dive into the issues related to that bill. And the members of the VSEA are grateful for the unanimous support that this committee showed that bill and that the committee a year prior, a different committee also passed unanimously, which was really something our members have a great deal of gratitude for. This bill, HSS89, is a top priority of the VSEA. It's an important piece of legislation. Our members are watching this very carefully. This issue really is about two things. It's about equity with the current law that provides this benefit to firefighters, both municipal volunteer firefighters, professional firefighters, and the firefighters who work for the state of Vermont. This is about equity for law enforcement, corrections officers. But something the Senate did, which we really support, is they added two classifications which are dominated primarily by women. They felt that was an important value to add to this bill and we think we agree with them and we support that. It is about equity. It's also about children. About the children of correctional officers, law enforcement officers, family service workers, mental health workers. It's fundamentally about their children and their spouse. We know that there haven't been, thankfully, there far have too many claims over the years than there should have been. We don't want anybody to die in the line of duty. But for instance, in the corrections department, our research shows that three correctional officers have died in the line of duty since the establishment of the Department of Corrections. That something less than 30 law enforcement officers are in that category. And certainly we know that in the last eleven years, twelve years maybe, we've lost one family service worker who was brutally murdered in the parking lot of the very state office building. This is not a huge fiscal impact on the state of Vermont, thankfully. As we work to improve the safety and security of our state operations, we hope that that will continue to be a declining number. But whether it's a law enforcement officer, a state trooper who is responding to a domestic, one of the most dangerous things that they can do, a family service worker who is going into a remote home to save a child who is being abused or neglected, a mental health worker who is helping Vermonters suffering from illnesses that may hinder their ability to judge whether or not how they respond to certain things, or it's a corrections worker breaking up a fight in a correctional facility. We want to make sure that they have the peace of mind. Those situations are sometimes unavoidable. We can improve the security and safety of our parking lots, of our buildings, but we sometimes cannot 100% remove all of the threats that state employees work. We know that there are a lot of categories beyond these categories that are dangerous and potentially life threatening. We'd ask this committee not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The bill that's before you has really, I think expanded to a number of appropriate classifications. We certainly would not be opposed if you wanted to add more, but we hope that you will not do less. We think $80,000 is not going to change the lives of the families necessarily except for it's not a ton of money. 80,000 is a lot of money. It may change their lives if it's maybe what allows that family now without their loved one, without a second paycheck to start a college fund or to pay for a funeral. Everybody can buy life insurance. All of us buy life insurance. I've encouraged Representative Howard to buy tons of life insurance. I've made sure she knows how to spell my name. I don't think I've been successful in that endeavor, but I hope to be more successful in convincing the committee to support S-eighty nine. Life insurance, I think, is something that many firefighters in our state also purchase, And yet they receive this benefit and have had this benefit in the statute since 2008. This is needed in the same way it was needed in 2005 for the firefighters, many of whom the state firefighters have the same benefits you heard the administration describe. One thing that I think is really critical is that for mental health workers and for family service workers, they are not, while they're covered by the state policy, they're not covered by the federal law and they're certainly not covered yet by the state law as it relates to a survivor benefit. So we would want to expand that. I think you'll hear from the treasurer's office, I'll let them testify, but being able to work closely with them to make sure that there are safeguards to protect the state's fiscal position. I let the treasurer describe some of the language that I think they'll suggest. It's language that the SCA supports. We also have worked really hard to make sure that in the bill, the treasurer has up to a year to pay out benefits, allowing them to come to the legislature if by some unfortunate circumstance there is a run on this fund. And they have been given by an amendment in the Senate the ability to go to the emergency board. There are several protections for the fiscal position of the state. This is not a major burden on the fiscal order of state. And so we hope that you'll consider that in your testimony. So as I said before, this is a major priority of the VSEA. It is an important labor bill and important for the labor community, and it's important for our members. I have heard from our members. Remarkably, I have heard from, I've noticed a number of our members who've reached out were single parents. And while they do have the state life insurance policy, they have thanked us for the advocacy on this bill and told us that they support this bill because it does add an element of maybe a sense of peace of mind that if something terrible happens, that at least the state can say, we've got your back, we'll do what we can to help your children and your family survive without you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Steve, that reminds me, you know, we had I introduced a bill that is now in the Senate about peer support for our frontline workers. And I think as a state and as people, we have a obligation or, you know, to show up for the people that show up for us every day. And so, I think, you know, legislation like this provides that opportunity to show our constituents in the state that we believe that the people that show up for us day in and day out deserve our support.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions for Steve or I'm you were you in the middle? Do you have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: anything Sorry. Just

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: no. I'm talking to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to remind me that as legislators, it's important to support and introduce legislation for our frontline community.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Elizabeth? Thanks. I want to add on to that, or ask you I guess I'm asking you as a human, not necessarily as leader of the SEA, but as somebody who understands how state government works and how we provide this specifically to firefighters, but contemplating expanding that to law enforcement officers. As we do have, but it's sprinkled here and there, either through state law or by rule or initiative, we are starting to contemplate adding mental health professionals and also peer support to law enforcement, either community or at the state level. So when you talk about mental health professionals, I don't know that you're talking about that. And how would you contemplate a role that is evolving right now? What kind of a language would you use in here to capture that so that this becomes a permanent part of it, but also is not so narrowly defined that it's included in shoes.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: I think that's a very important question. Think the language more broad enough to say that law enforcement included in that definition is any, whether it's a certified law enforcement officer or somebody, a mental health professional who's working directly with the public or with responding to calls. It's similar to how we define, you see it says, mentions correctional officers, but it also includes probation and parole officers, which are very similar. So I think you could broaden the definition or I don't have the definition right in front of me, but it could be included in that definition. But it's certainly, you're right, it is an evolving role, and it's one that I think we want to be

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: as inclusive of as possible. Other questions of Steve? I'm gonna play the Grinch, Steve, to answer Oh, love Somebody's gotta do it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's not me. Two

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: questions. One is, why should we do this? Why did we do it for firefighters, and why should we do it given that they've got a $460,000 federal benefit and a two times annual salary state benefit, well, if they work for the state. But it just strikes you when you look at this that given all the needs which we are doing squat about, or, you know, etcetera, this seems to be a fairly rich environment, benefit rich environment. So, if someone's working for the state and they're going to get two times their salary, which could be a 100 or a 150,000, plus $460,000 from the feds, plus their spouse is gonna get two thirds of their salary until they retire, that spouse retires or remarries, that's a lot of cash flowing. What's an extra 80,000? Why are we doing this?

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Well, would say for the same reason that you did in 2005 for the firefighters. In some ways, the loss of a spouse or loss of a parent is devastating regardless of when it happens or where it happens. When it happens, when someone's made the ultimate sacrifice in service to Vermonters in the employ of the state or a municipal government, It's almost a hole that we cannot fill, but we should completely fill. But it's a hole that we should make every effort to fill and to fill equitably. This is the benefit that is going to firefighters. They put their lives at risk with every call, but the same is true of family service workers. The same is true every time a mental health worker goes into a hospital room and tries to administer medication or whatever they're doing. And so we think it's an important value and we also believe that consistency matters. The federal one difference in this bill that's really important, and I think the Senate made a Senator Vihos D. And the Senate made a really good change is that it does incorporate family service workers and mental health workers that do not receive the federal benefit. And I think that's really important. As Senator Mihaly said in her rationale, it's because she wanted to make sure that we also had equity in terms of recognizing gender in the predominance of those employees. So, that's why I think this bill should be done. Equity with the firefighters, equity between the genders, and trying to fill a hole that is likely in the minds of the survivors, not one that's going to be filled lightly. Dollars 80,000 isn't a lot of money, but as I said, it might start a college fund. It might pay for some immediate but more than that is a moral value statement on behalf of the state of Vermont to people who made the ultimate sacrifice mostly to protect our safety or to protect the safety of children. And I think that's really important.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: As someone who lost my parents, one when I was really young, I totally understand that. And 80,000 is, like she said, but it can really help someone have a boost, it's very difficult when you lose

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: parent like me. I lost my dad when I was really young, and my mom, so it is very hard.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Served with your father, and he was a remarkable guy.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Continuing in my Grinch role.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, I was like sandwiching the Grinch kid.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, he can come up.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: He's trying to soften you up, soften it up a bit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But first of all, what I'm hearing you say, and tell me if you disagree with this, what you're saying in some ways, look, is this is, not that much money, but you're seeing it as a symbolic statement of commitment to the state employees and their families. You see that as kind of a key here. In other words, it may not add up to 500,000 or two times this or whatever, but it's a statement, etcetera. I guess my other question, since I get to play the nasty person, but I think you're the guy I wanna ask this too. Why shouldn't we use this to try to equalize things? So, for example, let me give you an example. Firefighters, professional and volunteer, if they're not state employees, they're not covered by the state employee benefit. And ditto certified law enforcement officers, if they're not state employees, they're not covered by that two times benefit. The DCF employees and the medical employees, they are covered by the benefit, but they don't get the 460,000 from the feds, So why shouldn't we say, okay, we're going to say that this applies to DCF employees, medical employees, firefighters, professional and volunteer, and certified law enforcement officers if they're not state employees? You see what I'm saying?

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: I do.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Why shouldn't we try to This is a weird When I look at this table, it's kind of this weird mixture of benefits and it's a little unequal, and I'm wondering, should we try to equalize things a little bit with this benefit?

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: So I'd say two things. One is, I do agree that this is a very important symbol. I don't want to diminish the practical importance of it to many families that it might be in challenging fiscal situations. That's the first part of the question. Second part of the question is I think you have to set aside the insurance that our members pay for, insurance that members purchase just like any other Vermonter can purchase. I'm sorry. From this benefit, which is not something that they purchase or pay for, but that is granted to firefighters and we believe ought to be granted across the board to the classes that are in this bill.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't have life insurance. Can't afford to do that. So it's like they're having to pay for those things. That's not an earned benefit, is the way I understand it.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, three quarters of it is earned. I mean, it's not what's paid for by the state. It's like health insurance.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, which I can't afford either.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, right. I'm wondering, other questions of Steve. I feel like I've had my Grinch. My Grinch has been I have

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: that effect on people anyway, so

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: anyway, Tom,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: and then Lindsay. I'll get a step down, Rich. One question is a follow-up. I was asking if if we disregard the policies that employees are paying for, which is deprived of, we still have the federal benefit, which is substantial. And it's substantial even as a symbol. Not everybody has that. Right? And I'm wondering if in this legislation, that's a little bit of the imbalance that we need to look at. I don't know that we can pay out a half $1,000,000 in the other categories that are not covered federally, But that seems to be a little bit of an imbalance. Mean, if you're dead, you're dead. It doesn't matter how you got there. That's the first question. I'll wait for the second.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Sure. Well, we do look at it as an issue of equity between the firefighters. If you look at the state level, the issue of equity with the firefighters and the other classes, particularly with the classes that aren't covered by the federal law. So it would be our hope that the federal government would eventually amend their federal law to match what we're asking the state to adopt here. So we believe that that benefit that is not luckily not widely used, so it's not a huge impact. If it's going to go to firefighters as it does, it has since 2005, it ought to go to these other classes. It particularly ought to also include the two classes that aren't covered by the federal government.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: If we didn't have the $80,000 benefit at all, but we did provide an insured patient coverage comparable to the federal benefit for those who don't have it, would that be equitable?

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: So for family service workers and mental health workers? Think about that. My head,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I can't answer that. If

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: we paid out three times in

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the last ten years or would have paid out, would that sum of money, sure, what type of policy would that fund? And would that policy be as significant as that federal benefit? I'm just thinking of from a different direction. The statement is really important.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Know,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: it's either a statement or it's financial benefit. The financial benefit is in hand for some of them. Statement still needs to be there. Maybe it's a different statement and better coverage. My second question is, we keep coming up, we keep referring to equity. And in terms of equity between who gets the benefit and who does not get the benefit, Do you see this list of occupations as equitable and how would you draw some kind of a definition that there's other hazardous state jobs and the highway worker gets on the side of the road while they're trying to do road work. Yeah. There are other. So how would you recommend, where, I don't know where to draw the line where everybody feels it's equitable because there's always the next, it's like giving out scholarships, there's always, you know, the kid is just below the cutoff and you're like, oh.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Would let you so.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: How would you define a group in such a way that everybody says? I mean, it makes sense. I

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: think it's hard because we represent such a vast and diverse group of folks. Our belief is that these are the positions where we experience the most threats of violence, the most incidents of violence, where their life is imminently in danger more frequently. And that's not to say that it shouldn't be expanded beyond that. This is what the Senate decided to pass. It did pass out of the Senate unanimously. And so, I think you could add to the list, as I testified earlier, and we would be 100% supportive of that. Some folks have suggested other categories and we would agree that they should be added, but this is what the Senate decided was good beginning. And for us, are, think these classifications more frequently come to our attention as being life threatening.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions? No,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: and thanks for your patience, right? It's been a journey again.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Yeah, it's funny, this bill is very popular.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, when I was door knocking, we're not talking about campaign, but when I was door knocking last cycle, I had correction officers thank us and our committee for passing this out twice. And yeah, it's very popular. And I like bills that have popularity among large scopes of people.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: I really appreciate that. And I know if people do think that they have commented, I think to legislators and to their union, that this is a priority of theirs. I've been in this building, I've worked in this building for over thirty years. And I think our team has over ninety two years

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Since you were 10.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Since I was 10, right? We have like over ninety two years of collective experience on our team in the Vermont State House. We are

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Vince is 80 of them.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Vince is 80 of them. We're quite convinced that if this bill gets through the committee process and makes it to the floor, it will pass with unanimous support. If not unanimous support, very broad based, tripartisan support. So our main objective in the next few weeks is to get this bill to the floor where we think the House will likely overwhelmingly support the bill, and we hope that any obstacles in the way can be overcome.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other questions or seats?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: You know where to find you.

[Steve Howard, Executive Director, Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA)]: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Can I just make a comment about what you were saying, Marc? And that is that you were saying that it's a symbolic commitment to families. Number one, from where I'm sitting right now today, 80,000, nothing symbolic about $80,000 For some people, it really would be a life changing amount of money. And secondly, I feel like the question that I asked Steve was about the who are the evolving role of mental health workers, whether they're peer support or professionals who are working alongside law enforcement, many of whom are volunteer. Volunteers by nature choose to support their fellow community members, but also protect the well-being of their fellow community members. And I think it's really, as a symbolic thing, it's really important to acknowledge that somebody would choose it makes it different from a highway worker, that somebody would choose to place themselves in danger for the benefit of the, well-being of their their fellow community member is something that ought to be acknowledged by the state. Are you saying,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth, or are you raising the question whether the family service employees and the psychiatric workers and medical workers are too narrowly defined because they're just only ones that work for the state.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, I'm saying that we have since I've been in the State House, we have had this role that we have first, when I served on health care in 2021, we allowed this role. To, Morning Fox, was the first coordinator of ride alongs of of mental health care workers, volunteers, along with Vermont state police. That was the first thing. And it has been evolving since then. And I think that we ought to, like, encompass terminology that allows for that to continue to evolve, because we don't know where it's gonna land. But it is a sometimes volunteer role, and that, we might consider making that part of making that part of it or making that making that kind of language adjustment or acknowledgment. Who's that? Oh, Sophie?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Was just thinking So you're

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: saying classified family service employees in the family services division of DCF Well, I was gonna is not is not broad enough to cover, like, a volunteer.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I was going wait until the state police officer who's coming in this afternoon comes in pepper him with questions about people who ride along as mental health workers with law enforcement officers at either local or state or whatever level. Because they're not LAOs, they are mental health, and their role is evolving, and we have allowed it versus incur like, we're now in the part where we're encouraging it because we've seen that it is effective. We are encouraging other aspects as well. And so we don't know where it's gonna land right now. It will change. It might it might be drawn back. We don't know today, but we should,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think. Can I just, while we have our next witness, just for the sake of your No, I'm, we

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: should move on?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I wanna hear more about it, but we could back after, just for the timing.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. So our next witness is David David, you want to come up? I know you've been here before, I think, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I believe so. Yes. Yes. Thank

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee for having me here today. For the record, David Scheer, Deputy Treasurer, and our office does administer the Emergency Personnel Survivors Benefit Survivors Fund, our service member of the board as well. The Treasurer's Forces Bill feels that it is an important recognize folks have talked about already. This is an important recognition for individuals who have dedicated their careers or their significant volunteer time to serving the people of the state or the people of their communities. And should that work or volunteer efforts result in their deaths, or should their deaths happen during the time that they are doing that work, it certainly seems like a just and fair outcome for the state to recognize that with this monetary benefit for those who they may have left behind. Our office did have an administrative concern as the administrator of the fund with how we would implement this expanded set of requirements. And we are grateful to the VSEA for working with us on that concern. We do have a proposal that if the committee would be willing, we'd love to present that to them. Let me give you a little bit of a background about where that administrative challenge that we identified comes from. Legislative counselor Scottney spoke about, there are two ways that payouts come from this fund. One is through death in the line of duty. And that's a fairly straightforward thing to assess. The second way is through an occupation related illness. That occupation related illness could be either a disease that results from the service, so cancer being one that we see in firefighters in particular, And the other way is through the heart injury or disease, the way the statute refers to it, commonly I think people would talk about it as a heart attack that occurs seventy two hours from the last day of service. In the last two years, I believe it is a little over two years, there has been four payouts under this fund. Each one of those payouts have been under the occupation related illness provision, not under the death in the line of duty provision, But I believe two of them have been cancer related and two of them were heart disease related. The challenge that we identify, so let me give a little bit more context with respect to firefighters, there is workers' compensation law that provides presumptions about a firefighter who passes away from cancer. And the presumption is that certain types of cancers are compensable under workers' compensation law. In this case, they would be beneficiaries of this fund. Although it is not explicitly stated in the statute, the statutory language that makes up this, that establishes this fund clearly echoes some of the workers' compensation law. And as a result, the board in the last few decisions has utilized the presumptions workers' compensation law when assessing whether a firefighter who may have passed away from change is That's not the case for other lines of work that are now being identified in this act. The challenge that we are concerned about is just the work and the expertise that would need to go into assessing whether or not some say a Department of Corrections worker who passes away from cancer and may ask for a benefit from this fund whether or not that cancer did arise from their work. It is possible that it did and we should give that person the benefit if it did. But we also want to make sure that the fund is going, the board wants to make sure that the fund is going to the people who it is meant to serve. And so we want to, in order to do that, you have to make an assessment about whether or not the disease, in this case, amusing cancer as an example, really didn't rise in the course of their work. And when you are expanding the number of the categories of people are eligible, our concern is that that becomes more challenging to do. The solution that we're proposing and that the SCA has agreed with us on is basically to say that the board can expend funds to hire an expert should that be needed only in the case of the occupational related illness piece for leaving out the line of duty piece because we view that as relatively straightforward to assess. So for the occupational related illness piece, it would allow the board to utilize funds and those funds to hire an appropriate expert would come from the body of the emerging personal survivors fund, which is managed in our office and is sustained by appropriations. I mean, does earn a small amount of interest, but it's funded in a large way.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Sorry, say again what the source of the funding would be?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The fund. The fund.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: They would use the fund. The current 94,000 or whatever.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: That's right, that's what's currently in there, yeah.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Would be used to hire hours for an outside expert? That's correct.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: David, help me out, I'm having a fundamental problem here. They're all covered, all the categories you're talking about are covered by workers' comp. Why not the same workers' comp criteria that you use for the firefighter?

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: The workers' comp criteria for the firefighter specifically talks about cancers and a presumption around those cancers and

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: that they are compensatory.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: Other categories of workers don't have the same presumption in the workers' comp statute.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, Like someone at the Department of Corrections, I got a mouthful of trauma someone at the Department of Corrections wouldn't be exposed to the same things that we know firefighters.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So there's a plodsody of information in the workers' comp approach.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: Yes, that's a fair way to put it. We've been relying on the workers' comp statute to provide us guidance on how we make these decisions, and the workers' comp guidance is clear and makes it, I don't want to say super easy, but it makes it relatively straightforward to make an assessment. Without that guidance, it will require more research and work potentially to assess whether or not an occupation related illness did in fact result from somebody's work. Yes, Elizabeth.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Are volunteers covered by workers' compensation?

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: For the firefighters? In any capacity. I don't know the answer to that, so I would defer to folks who do that work Sorry. Or

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you. Sorry, I'm sorry. Ahead.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: I imagine that the firefighters workers' comp language does however include mental health issues, physical, know, whatever, like overuse or things that could have endangered somebody.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: Yes, does. And it does that for other professions, for some professions too. Again, we're talking about a death benefit.

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: Right, right, right. So you're saying an occupational related illness, there's been, there's so much more clarity for firefighters than an unevolutional illness for other for instance, who would you rely on? Would you not rather us put that, make that more clear, what you have to refer to to determine that? Or would you rather have us leave it open and just pay for it?

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: I think that there's so many potential possibilities here that it makes sense to allow the board to have an inquiry to try to understand where the protections might be and make an assessment about the likelihood that it was related to the employee's appointment. And that could be a doctor, it could be an insurance expert, somebody who may think his job is to make assessments of probabilities of harm, either an actuary or somebody does actuarial work. So I don't want to presuppose what the best method might be for any given case.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And you might not use it, it's just you can if you

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: That's exactly right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a may not a shall.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: That's exactly right. Yeah, and I think, again, it doesn't include the line of duty piece at all, that's not part of But even for

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But you want that as a tool if you need it.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: That's exactly right, yeah. I think I think we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: should grant you that tool.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, do you have language?

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: Yes, and I can read it or share it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, think Go ahead. The thing yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And Why don't you tell us what it is and then why don't you send the language to it? Sure. Okay.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: So there would be an addition if you're proposing an addition in two sections. One would be in 3,172, which is actually not in S89, I don't believe. It's in the underlying statute, but the bill doesn't include that piece of it. So it's 3,172, which is the Emergency Personnel Survivor's Benefit Review Board. There is currently existing language, sort of it's a long paragraph and there's currently existing language that says the following in the middle of that paragraph. Board shall be responsible for determining whether to allude to a monetary benefit section three thousand one seventy three, which is the special fund section. Our proposed addition to that follows that sentence and it would say, to assist the board with applications involving deaths from occupation related illness, the board may pay reasonable fees from the fund for medical and other services as necessary to review applications and make recommendations to the board. That would be one addition in that section. There would be another addition in section 3,175, which is the section that sort of defines the actual fund. It's just stating that it is in the treasurer's office managed by the office of the treasurer. There's one just technical change, which I'll leave that our general counsel proposed, but I'll leave that aside for now. Legislative counsel think about that. But the addition would basically be the fund shall comprise transfers made by the general assembly. This is the addition, amounts transferred by, this is sorry, this is the addition made by the Senate just to clarify. And then our addition comes in later. Amounts transferred by the emergency board when the general assembly is not in session, that's to deal with that issue of foreigners have enough of a session. And then here's the addition to contributions or donations from any other source. Our addition is necessary expenses incurred pursuant to section 3172A, sheltering aid from the bond And so it's kind of a belt and suspenders way of referencing what was in the prior section. And I can send that. Yeah,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'll send it in. Remind me, other advocates are amenable to that language as well.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: The VSEA.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They're nodding?

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: Yeah. Oh yeah, I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: guess the police op will ask too.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. Any other questions of David?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll probably have you back.

[David Scherr, Deputy State Treasurer]: You. Happy to be back.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Thank you. We are at this point at the end of our testimony for this morning, so we are going to break until after the floor when we will come back and hear the police officers. This is Chris Horror from the United Federation of Police. Do you have anything else? I also want to update your committee on sort of how we're going to move forward with S-two 30 and how we're going to move forward with S-three 20 and get reactions for Any final things before we let go for lunch?

[Beth Fastiggi, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Human Resources]: No.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Alright.