House amends ethics bill to require state-provided municipal training; third reading ordered

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on March 29, 2024 amended House Bill 875 to make explicit that the State Ethics Commission will provide a training that satisfies municipal ethics training requirements, and the House ordered the bill read a third time.

The amendment, offered by the Member from St. Alban City and circulated to members by email and on the House overview webpage, was described by its reporter as a clarifying change that "makes it very clear that the state ethics commission will offer a training that will satisfy that." The Chamber adopted the amendment by voice vote; the Speaker announced "the ayes do have it and you have amended the bill." The House then moved to third reading and ordered third reading by voice vote.

Supporters said the bill creates a statewide floor for municipal ethics and supplies a resource for towns that cannot afford local legal counsel. The Member from Guilford, who described a local dispute that cost her municipality about $30,000, said the measure would have provided a useful backstop. The Member from Rutland City said the bill "provides smaller towns who cannot afford full time legal counsel the opportunity to address these concerns in a concise and fair way."

Opponents raised concerns about local control, added time and administrative burdens for volunteer municipal officials, and the bill’s lack of dedicated funding. Several members said they planned to consult town officials over the weekend before voting. The Member from Colchester questioned whether the expanded duties for the commission could be performed without positions or appropriations; committee representatives responded that appropriations language had been removed to meet crossover deadlines and that staffing remains a budgetary decision.

The reporter clarified several substantive points during questioning. On investigatory standards in municipal investigations, she said the bill "does not specify very specific investigatory requirements" and that discretion remains with municipalities; the State Ethics Commission can provide advice and approve trainings but would not displace municipal enforcement powers. On disclosure rules for candidates, the reporter said candidates need not list entire client rosters or client addresses—only clients that meet the bill’s specified parameters (for example, a client that has a government contract or whose principal business is with the state or a municipality) and only to the extent that those relationships are known at the time of filing.

The transcript records that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) testified against the bill (opposition noted during questioning). The reporter said the bill includes language preventing the commission from unreasonably withholding approval of municipal or third-party trainings and that the commission will make training available to municipalities so towns "wouldn't have to develop their own training, under really any circumstance."

Next steps: the House ordered third reading of HB 875. Lawmakers also postponed several other bills because of the hour; the House adjourned until Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 10 a.m.

Sources and evidence: assertions, quotes, and procedural outcomes are taken from the House transcript of March 29, 2024.