Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Like, that's such that's
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good afternoon, and welcome to the call for the government operations committee meeting on Wednesday, 03/11/2026. We're a bit late from the floor, but not as bad as, well, not bad. Not as lengthy as. I wanna look at s two seventy five, the act relating to creation of the cemetery vandalism response fund. You have on your desks, hopefully, draft 4.1 oops. That's the wrong bill. Draft 1.2 of the bill. And there are some highlighted changes. Well yes. Plural changes. And while we have time, Diana Vyhovsky is with us on Zoom. We didn't invite her to
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: She's not yet.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Well, let's go over the changes then. John, would you mind joining John Gray? Yep.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Afternoon, everyone. John Gray, sponsor of counsel. Should be pretty pretty straightforward to walk through. If I could
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: get sharing privileges, please. It's okay.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So I've been requested to make three changes to s 275, which is your cemetery vandalism response fund. The first was to add as a consideration. You may recall there are considerations that VOCA would undertake when considering whether to extend the grant for vandalism care. It was requested that I add as a consideration that the vandalism is motivated in some fashion by a person's membership in a particular protected category. So it's you can think of this it's kind of the simplest way to think of this if it's kind of like a hate crime. This is meant to result in our priority within the the grant application process. The second thing I was asked to ensure was the a prohibition for cemeteries to pass along that $5 fee to folks who are receiving financial assistance for burials or cremations. So the bill doesn't specify how the $5 contribution is collected that would be used for repair, collected for each burial and cremation, but it's establishing that you could not pass that along to someone who requires financial assistance. And then lastly, to move collections from VOCA to the division for historic preservation. So with that, I'm gonna screen share. And the changes are shown in highlights, which is pretty simple to tell. The first piece we're gonna come to is the definite definition. On page one, this is the addition of the term protected category. And what I've done here is and I can flip to the actual statute itself, but I've just used the same definition that's used for the hate crime statute that I have pulled up here. So as you see in subsection c, as used in the section, protected category includes race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, service in the US Armed Forces or National Guard, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and perceived membership in any such group. So it's quite a broad callout of categories, and this is gonna be used in that grant application consideration. Mhmm. So that's why we have the term here, and I think it's nice to not build in any sort of new definition. Just latch on to what already says. On page three Oh, I'm sorry? It's all the way to page four. Yep. I am gonna scroll up to three just to hit the lead in language starting in subdivision two here. A VOCA representative shall review the qualifying damage within ninety days after receipt of a complete grant application and make a determination based on the following factors. We've gone through these factors before, including things like the severity of the damage, whether it's part of the wave, the new consideration that's added at the top of page four, line three, subdivision e, whether the vandalism appears to be motivated in whole or in part by a person's actual or perceived membership in a protected category. I did make some discretionary calls on how to do this. So what I would call out is, one, I have this whether it appears to be motivating, but I don't know how much information is gonna be readily available to VOCA to make this determination, and I didn't wanna require some heavy duty investigation. If they've received, for instance, any criminal documents, which would be something that would be required to be supplied, if there were legal documents accompanying it Mhmm. That would indicate whether it's motivated. But my guess is that the sort of thing you're trying to get at should be facially obvious, meaning that the defacement itself indicates that it's targeted toward a particular group. And so that would be picked up to this, whether the vandalism appears to be motivated. And I did wanna also call it the in whole or in part. I think it's okay even if you don't use this, but sometimes people say, does that mean it needs to be exclusively motivated by someone's membership or protected category? It does not as long as any element of the defenseman vandalism comes from the protected category. And the last piece that I'm gonna scratch your name, Paul, on is imagine that the vandalism occurs to a particular deceased's grave, but they themselves are not part of the protected category that's targeted by the vandalism. I would assume you would still wanna pick that up even though it's not targeted at them. It could be just sort of a general right. Like
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that's why people?
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I mean
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So anyone entering anyone entering the the cemetery. So the generic call out here is whether the vandalism appears to be motivated by a person's, not necessarily the other person.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. Nice. Senator Vyhovsky.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So if I'm gonna clarify all of that, I just wanna make sure that I understand. If someone just painted obscenities, say lots of depth words, on someone's grave who happened to be Jewish, that would not be captured. But if someone painted a swastika on that grave, it would. And if someone painted a swastika on a grave of someone who's not Jewish, that would also be captured.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That is a good way to summarize it. I think I would slightly complicate the first example. Yeah. Think the first example would be It depends. It it depends because if the reason and it would be hard to know. Right? And that's part of why why we have this just appear to be motivating. If it happened to be that the cemetery had lots of non Jewish deceased persons and none of those were littered with f words and that every Jewish person's, right? In that case, you would think that you would think that that is on the basis of their protected blood life.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Red Reed had f words, and some of them happened to be Jewish.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Okay. Exactly. That that would give no indication that he was on the basis of their membership when he gets a cab.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But if every grave had a swastika, it would be considered
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: But every exactly. Because then the swastika carries connotations of it. It's directed against them.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I just Yeah. Let's see where there's any graffiti out there that. Well,
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it's only one of the things that will be taking this consideration. So Right. In in
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: in all cases, even if you didn't have this consideration, you're recommending graffiti and vandalism. So
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: all of it is The in funds is this is for priority. Yeah.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: This is one of the things that would be considered for me. But I I think the way you described it is a useful set of scenarios to differentiate what is meant to be. Okay.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Not that I love having that conversation.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I I don't even know what words to use when I I try to speak abstractly to the.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Uh-huh. Okay.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So that is the the first piece. The others should be simpler to talk about. On page five, section three is your Centuri Vandalism Response Fund. This is where the grants are provided from, and it's funded by a $5 contribution, as you'll see on line 11. So under subsection b, fees and collection, every agency shall contribute $5 to the cemetery vandalism response fund for each burial or cremation it performs. The thing I noted earlier, I just wanna hit again here, this doesn't specify you may recall from when we had the walk through list, it doesn't specify how that where that $5 comes from. Right? Be intuitive that it might be passed along to the families that are having a burial probation. And so the new addition proposed here on lines 14 through 16 is just an outright prohibition. It doesn't take a position on how these agencies are gonna collect the fees, but it says, in no case can you do it in this way. So an agency shall not charge a fee to cover the cost of the contribution to any person receiving state or federal for the burial or cremation. I suppose I do have the question if the
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: sorry.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: If state or federal financial assistance is sufficiently broad, there may be other kinds of financial assistance. I I'm not Yes. Aware of. So I advise
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The other financial assistance is from the the the funeral director's fund. The funeral directors at large have a fund Right. That they help pay for peep people who have no money. Okay. And that is a fund that is probably used more than state or federal fund.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It's and it's not considered a state? Okay. Okay.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't think that's an org it's a it's a organization's card
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: or a Okay. So we wanna make sure Association collection.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So then if you guys are comfortable with this sentence, I think I would need to update this to be receiving state, federal, or, you know, financial assistance from the state, the federal government, or this particular fund. I'm checking final policy.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Wouldn't we just say that they shall not charge a fee if the person is receiving federal assistance for bury or or receiving financial Financial burial or cremation. Because just because that's the only fund that currently exists doesn't mean there might not be different funds that either. And the point is that if someone needs help in a burial piece, you should be carving them extra fees. Right. So I would
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: just cross out state or federal and just leave it.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So I am I'm I love the simplicity of that. The only hesitation I have and why I did include callouts to state or why I was at all specific is someone trying to make the argument of how broad financial assistance might be. So, like, they go to their friend and ask for assistance with the burial or cremation. Is that financial assistance from their friend? Maybe it doesn't actually matter, because practically, the agencies are the ones making this determination, so they can presumably gather from just the generic call out for receiving financial that they would only not charge that to someone who is receiving a sort of understood, recognized, governmental, or otherwise standard for financial assistance. I just didn't want them to be in a position of thinking, they need to think through what might constitute financial assistance. And so it's similar to, say, state or federal away, but I I don't see an issue with that. And I think it's the agency is the one that's likely to make a reasonable determination in the case. So
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: K.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not bothered, but that's why I did include a specific case. Perfect. So I can make those two updates to that section. The last changes relate to who collects the bees themselves. This does not disrupt in any way who administers the fund and who supplies the grains. Right? It's still through the Vermont Old Cemetery Association, but this has the actual collection process going to the division for historic preservation. So starting on line 17, every agency that has performed a burial cremation during the preceding calendar year shall submit to the division for historic preservation, which is within ACCD, a check made out to VOCA for the total amount collected during the preceding year. And I did to avoid confusion, assuming that the checks are still going to VOCA and this is just the collection mechanism itself, I wanted to make sure that folks didn't mistakenly address their checks to division for historic preservation if it's truly just that they're the pass through into Senator the Clarkson.
[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Has, Moore agreed to this? Has the division of historic preservation agreed to this?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.
[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Great. I did see that. Aren't charging an administration fee?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. I did some homework.
[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That was very good of the division and of you. Thank you.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Any questions for John? One one last Yeah. Just the same change on page six. Yeah. For the initial fee collection, we're kinda getting backdated fees, deficient of for historic preservation to do this. And that's the whole of the that is the whole set of updates. I got a few things to do
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yep. For you guys. And I'm hoping that I haven't seen Diana. What what I hoped was that the municipal clerk's association would be able to say, go ahead and repeal the section of current statute that collects this five and replace it with this new stuff because that would be important if if there were 50 clerks who get, you know, $5 for every time there's a burial, maybe they don't wanna lose it. So I don't wanna do anything without their blessing. But to answer Senator Clarkson's question and I struggle with this. I worked all all weekend on this, actually, because it started with the suggestion that OPR has a statute where they might collect it. And I spoke with with OPR, and they said, no. There's really no connection between us and burial situation. Then the Department of Health was suggested as another sort of focal point to send the money to. And I spoke with the chief medical examiner who said, no. We don't have anything to do with that and didn't express any great interest in getting involved with it. So I I called Laura. Trishman or Trishman? Trishman. It's Trishman. And we had a nice talk, and she talked with Tom Giffin from VOCA, and they both have come to an agreement that as long as it's on an annual basis
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: she doesn't wanna get rid of the just gonna say month later. It would be hard.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: They will forward checks to her. She'll keep track of it. And then every year, she'll send a check for whatever amount it is devoted. And That's great. So we're very close. But, again, I wanna make sure that the clerks at the last minute don't throw up a red flag and say, wait a minute. You never asked us how we feel. I mean, we can leave current statute alone, but this then becomes an additional $5 that the funeral directors association would have to collect. So I would prefer it to go the other way, but I guess we're not gonna be able to no. She's she was working alone today, and she must have been called away. So guess what? Let's have another day. Sure. Could you mind?
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I might ask her to just be in touch when she's ready, and then we could always Yeah. And
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I have other amendments that I'll I'll need to make to this anyway, so I already have to come back for another day. Okay.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: But we only have two more, John. So
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And you're well aware. Yeah.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. And it is 02:30, and I know you have another date. So
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: we'll Perfect. You going. To see you.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Good to see you.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Good to see you, John. And before you leave
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh my. Harry Carzones Okay.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Walked over with a very nice note about my decision to retire. Cookies. Well, those are special cookies. They're not the usual one.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This is different.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's good. I might have not seen it because I love that. Anyway Okay. Thank you, Terry.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So assuming that can happen and we get the clerk's piss on this, I'll try to move this tomorrow. I have something to do with today. John, will it be possible for you to add all the members tomorrow? Yep. Okay. Thanks, John. Or today? No. Because I can't. I
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I mean, Diane might be able to he might. It's unlikely today, but Okay.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Perfect. I can do tomorrow. Yep. Thanks very much.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: See you guys. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Our next item was to walk through the legislative review of reporting requirements. Tucker was ready to go at 02:30, but I gave him a heads up that the floor might get a little extended, so he might be just a few minutes. So risk of losing all my cats again don't. Let's take a five minute break, and we'll be back in just five minutes or so.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Did you get one?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I just had one a little while ago. Not bad. Or still
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna wait a little bit. I'm very
[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I lost.
[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Lunchtime dinner there. I'm just waiting for takes a while before. Oh, so I click it. Oh. Well, we'd offer them the plus of being in person is you get real cookie. If you're online, it's loose. Right.