Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Good

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: afternoon. Welcome back to the Senate Committee on the Government Operations meeting on Tuesday, 04/28/2026. And with us is representative Burrows and also Sophie Sadotny. We're gonna look at s 89. This was sent over to the house a couple weeks, three weeks ago, something like that. And they have sent back a strike call and, have included some new language. I just wanted to make sure that the committee hears this. I doubt very much based on the calendar whether we'll get to this tomorrow, but we might. So I just want to be prepared if we do. So welcome back. And you can let us know what you did to change the original bill to help.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Well, for the record, my name is Representative Elizabeth Burrows, and I represent Windsor 1, which is Hartland, West Windsor, and Windsor. Obviously.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So,

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: had a lot of discussion in our committees about bigger changes that we couldn't make, we wound up making a few little small tweaks. Here they are. And I invite Sophie to correct me if I am mistaken in enumerating these. One was that we made it prospective for claims that are made only after July 1. Good idea. We included a permission that allows the emergency board to replenish funds should they run out while the legislature is not in session.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think we have that in ours.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: No. We talked about that. We decided because we were opening it up.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I stand corrected. Sorry.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: And we added a the possibility of adding funding for medical expertise for the board's determinations in occupation related illnesses. And then we added some definitions including what is the line of foodie. Yes. We had a whole bunch of conversations about that. And you made it easier for us and clarified it. We did well, Sophie did. Sophie did. That's Am I missing it? I think that's it. I can I can Okay?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes, senator White.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: It says generally on the line of duty piece. You said you clarified it in

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I just You did. No. It's the same version that came out of the Senate on the line of duty.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Oh. Oh. I said

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: never mind then. Because we did we kinda circled around on that. So I was like, wait

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: a minute. If you guys figured

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: that out, that would be helpful. It's still the same, which means that there might still be concerns related to I think the concern was if you were someone maybe working in an administrative position and it was expanded, like someone who was in DCF and you had a heart attack on the job, are what would the would that be considered the line of duty? The benefit wouldn't apply to them. The way we set up the bill, then it only applied to frontline workers.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Right.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: So but I guess maybe let me rephrase. Then, like, a frontline worker who has a heart attack in the line of duty, which may

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: have been unrelated. But nonetheless, I mean, we would allow a law enforcement officer who was killed in a car crash in the line of duty, like the way that you envision the line of duty is as flexible as any circumstance that you can imagine. We did, I made our committee explore not positions, but scenarios and having the benefit be given to people involved in particular scenarios. So, for example, if a translator was riding along, and a scenario occurred, the translator's family could have received that benefit. We decided, because there are all kinds of, different scenarios that are related to professions and do we really want to expand the professions versus the causes, that we decided to just keep it as simple as possible and stay with what you sent us. Okay, great. Revisit it at another time if we want to. Yeah, exactly. Well, thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, we, I think it's our language to define line of duty, And there's one, two, three, four, five, there's probably seven or eight different provisions inside that. I'm looking at the calendar from Friday, which has the proposal amendment. So as representative Earl said, if it was a translator that was just sort of riding along, he or she would not necessarily come into this. But certainly if it's a fire person and they're answering the call, if it's a law enforcement person, they're answering the call, all of that does. And then with respect to Department of Corrections, if they're frontline providing security for those residents, that will come into play. Hey, we can talk about the line of duty. But the amendment, and I do like it, just never thought about it, I guess, is making it effective beginning July 2026 and also allowing that board to employ a medical professional to determine, I don't want to say legitimacy, the, well, maybe that's what it is, that this claim should be awarded. I'll just remind the committee again, the board has to be unanimous in its decision to award the 80,000. It isn't like it's a majority vote. It's unanimous decision. So I think we built certain guardrail into it. I remember when we were talking about the bill, this isn't something, thankfully, that happens even It's been a number of years since this happened. If I recall the research I did had to do, because right now it's just fire people that get this coverage. There's been no, I guess I'd been one in ten years. If I remember, I might be off by a Very, very few. Yeah.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Right. They're trying to find this amendment. Where is it?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's in today's calendar, S89. It was on the action, the last bill for action.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: So it is not in our committee bills, it is the senate calendar. Correct.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator White.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I was just going

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: to say, so it does cover law enforcement. Though.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It This bill would expand it to that.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: Yes. But so I guess the way I've been thinking about it is less who has been covered, but who would have been covered retroactively. And we did have a recent death in the line of duty for a a law enforcement provider. So yeah. So I I hear what you're saying around so few. I do think this we may actually see one a year at a greater

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And this would not allow that film if it was after July 1 this year.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Jessica Ebinghausen would not. Her family would not be included, unfortunately. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think we heard from the treasurer looking at it the way you are thinking, Senator White, sort of if these people had been covered over the past ten years, and I believe they testified that it would have just been, was

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: it three? Three.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think that's three.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Okay. Yeah. Thanks. So it was very It

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is it is very few. I mean and, you know, certainly my hope would be that much like what we saw happen with the death in Rutland, you know, a whole investigation happened. They figured out what problem was. I don't know that they have sort of worked to rectify that, but my hope would be that anytime we have a death in the line of duty, that we are evaluating and learning from that situation to make sure that

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: that doesn't happen again. That'd be after action Yeah. Something I like

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: can assure you well, Amy, that's a strong word. I am pretty sure that the current the administration of the police department has changed since then, and there were very unfortunate lessons learned out of all of that. If Chief Probbe, who's Matt Probbe is now the chief of police, if he has his way, people will follow orders. So thank you, Representative Gross. We appreciate your attention. You're most welcome. And Sophie, if you want to come up in case there are any technical questions about what House General has added to this. Think So it's hard to sort

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: of see what the I hate to ask, but maybe Sophie, as you go through this, you could just it's not obviously high lit in the Senate calendar.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: If you look at section two, those are the changes.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: I can put it up on the screen. Okay, we've got it here.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council, and then I'll go ahead and share my screen.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Awesome. Thank you. So

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and I've highlighted what the changes are. So, again, the definitions have not changed from when this left the senate. So again, emergency personnel, the current two categories of firefighters, emergency medical personnel. The four new categories are law enforcement officers, facility employees of the Department of Corrections, and their employees who provide direct security and treatment services to offenders under supervision in the community, classified family services employees in the Family Services Division of DCF, and classified medical employees as state operated therapeutic community residences or inpatient psychiatric hospital units. So none of that has changed. And then the line of duty, the changes that came out of the Senate, none of these have changed either. So again, it goes through for each of the new categories, what the line of duty would be. So then we get into the changes. So this is under section two. This adds makes changes to section three one seven two of the emergency personnel survivors benefit review board. And really, there's just two I mean, just quickly, there's just really two changes that were made in house general. So one was the perspective that those four new categories of employees, it would apply for deaths that occur on or after July one of of this year. And that was a concern on the fiscal front as to, you know, how many claims could come, you know, come out of the woodwork, so to speak. And so that may focus on the house side be more comfortable from a financial perspective that this would be prospective for these four new categories. And then the other change is around, which I think this committee had begun to hear about, but around the treasurer's request from some additional resources to help with occupation related illnesses. So subsection A got broken up. If you look in the current statute, it's a big chunk of language. And so in general and housing, this just got broken up into sort of its component pieces. And then this underlying language here is new. So this provides that this is the key language, right? Survivors of emergency personnel employed by or who volunteer for the state of Vermont, a county or municipality of the state or a non profit entity that provides services in the state who die in the line of duty or of an occupation related illness may request the board award a monetary benefit under section three thousand one seventy three of this chapter, except survivors of emergency personnel as defined in the subdivisions under the definition sections, so these are the four new categories, may request the monetary benefit only for deaths that occur on or off to 07/01/2026. So that's the perspective piece. And then the second piece here is that to assist the board with applications involving deaths from occupation related illness, so not the line of duty where usually that's pretty straightforward, but the occupation related piece. The board may pay reasonable fees from the emergency personnel survivors benefit special fund for a medical expert and other services as necessary to review applications and make recommendations to the board. So the testimony from the treasurer's office is that the most recent claims, and I believe there were four of them, have all involved firefighters, and they have generally involved occupation related offices. And what they have been doing is looking at the workers' compensation laws to determine if it's an occupation related illness or not. And then on the House side, we did look at a whole series of there are a number of presumptions under workers' compensation law as to when something is considered an occupation related illness. And for firefighters, given how toxic the environment is that they work in, for example, there's a list of things. So if you die of certain types of cancer within five years, then it's presumed to be an occupation related illness. If you die of any cancer within ten years of service, it's presumed to be an occupation related illness. That's specific to firefighters. And then there are other presumptions around if you have a heart attack within seventy two hours of as a police officer or or a firefighter, that's presumed to be, you know, work related. So in on the house side, they they looked at what the different presumptions are on the workers' compensation piece, and my understanding is that that's typically the treasurer's office who provides support to the board that makes these determinations. They're typically looking at workers' compensation laws to figure out when something is occupation related. But again, they also want the ability to be able to use some of the funds to pay for reasonable fees for a medical expert or other expert testimony to make sure that they're making the correct decisions on applications that they receive. So no changes to the rest of the language in that section, it's just broken up. So again, now we've got subdivisions four and five. And then when this bill came out of the Senate, it provided there was a floor amendment that added in that the emergency board can transfer money into the fund when the general assembly is not in session. Right. And so this includes the the highlighted language here is the additional language, and this is just, again, tying back in to the ability of the board to use some of the funds to pay for medical expert or other services. So this language just provides expenses incurred pursuant to subdivision three one seven two eight three, which is the one we just looked at, shall be paid from the fund. So that's those were really the two changes. It was one perspective, and two, giving the treasurer's office some or the board through the treasurer's office some flexibility when they're looking at those occupation related illness claims.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is there's no presumption, I don't think, that if a workers' compensation decision had been made, that that automatically would mean that the death benefit would carry forward too?

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So my understanding from what the treasurer's office explained was that in looking at some of those recent cases involving firefighters, and I think at least a couple of them involve cancers, was they just looked at what the workers' compensation statute provides, and there are these presumptions in favor of finding that it's covered by workers' compensation, so it's occupation related, so therefore they found that those were covered benefits.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: But they could decide the other way too, yes.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Presumably they could, yes. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I just didn't want to tie the two together.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, it's just I think some of the questions that have come up is what happens if someone has cancer that's in one of these other categories, and it's like they would still have to establish that that is occupation related. Similarly, for firefighters, if if they smoke or they've got something else, lawyer

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: can still

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: con exacerbate.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They can still contest it. You know, it's not like a a given. It's just the presumption is in favor of finding that it's compensable. So it

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: is a rebuttable presumption. Right. Yeah. Right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Very good.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: It's almost like I served on the judiciary committee. And

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: used to. You could read through the bar.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: I'm not sure if serving on the Judiciary Committee counts. That's my

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, you have to take any statements.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: That or some that made some good count. I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: wish, again, just on a personal note, that we could include Jessica's families, but

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Well, couldn't we?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, it's three years ago.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: I mean, but why couldn't we say with the special dispensation for availability for I mean, what mean because I know we also include Laura Sobel's family.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yeah. We've been there a lot

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of people when when they

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: go to but she was compensated, I hope, from the federal benefit, which is much more substantial. Maybe. I don't know.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't know either.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Well, I don't know how we would find

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: that information out, I guess what I would say is I understand the argument of, well, we can give this to one person, why not others? I do think that

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: How far back it could go.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: And I think

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's the question.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: My bright line would be three years, so.

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, the federal benefit is 161 Yeah, as a that's significant part. So hopefully the family did apply for that. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Any questions for Attorney Sadatney or Representative Burroughs? No. Thank you. Or Tom Avalon or anyone else? Representative Howard? I don't think we have any problems with the amendment.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: I think you guys have did good work.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: I think I would certainly support concurring the house.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good. I'll stand up and hand it to the soul, and then we'll take it up.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Well, we're reporting this. It was the same day. Oh, you can.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White]: I can. Yep. I'm happy to. Right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, just the two changes, the date change and then the ability of the board to employ a medical type to decide. Absolutely. Help them decide. That's important too. That medical person doesn't have the final say. It's still the board that It has to unanimously

[Sophie Zdatny, Office of Legislative Counsel]: just gives the board the ability to, I mean, if they're making difficult decisions around whether something going on is an occupational related illness, they've got some resources to help.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Anything else?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: On this bill? No, I think that's

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a good one. Thank you. Well, it's another easy day, folks. No. Well, We still have animal welfare. Thank you. We need to take out tomorrow and then.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I wish you could us of our time to your morning.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Oh, man. I would be so grateful too for that. Thanks, Mary. Thank you so much. You know, I worked with Jessica Evanowski's dad, and he just passed away last year. Yes. Thank you so much.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, you're very welcome. Okay, if there's nothing else to come before the committee, we'll adjourn for the day and see all of you.