Blog

/ /

Thank You for the Privilege of Serving Our District

Friends and Neighbors,

As we continue to process the results of the 2024 election, I want to pause and express my gratitude for the continued opportunity to serve this district. I am nothing but humbled by the continued opportunity to represent you in Montpelier. Although I ran unopposed (and I want to acknowledge that you may have mixed feelings about simply checking that box), I want to assure you that I take this responsibility to heart. I truly understand that representing our community is a privilege that I do not take for granted. I know that uncontested seats still demand an active and thoughtful representative.

As we reflect on the election results, we’re once again reminded of the systemic racism, hate, and misogyny that so clearly pervade the foundational processes by which we select our leaders. I am especially thankful to serve in Vermont’s legislature, a place where collaboration across political lines is still possible and where I have already had the honor of developing genuine, constructive relationships with my Republican colleagues. In these times of heightened division, Vermont’s unique commitment to dialogue and cooperation is something I recognize and value.

As we move into the 2025-26 legislative session, I’d like to briefly share some of the priorities I’m working on. At the forefront of my concerns is the future of public K-12 education in Vermont. With recent election results, we will likely see renewed calls for austerity measures in our schools. The Governor’s opposition to income tax-based funding and refusal to consider non-homestead or additional property tax increases will likely limit our options for adequately funding public education, leaving us reliant on reserves as a short-term solution. This, along with eliminating school meals, has so far been his only proposed solution. I worry that this approach will eventually lead to more burdens on local districts, unwarranted and short sighted critique of our educators’ salaries, and ultimately, the call for privatization of education services – changes that could reduce both access and quality. Please realize that I am also committed to continued advocacy for the current student weighting system that absolutely serves our district.

Regarding our higher education systems, I remain committed to challenging the growing commodification of our public institutions. Education is a public good and a pathway to opportunity, not a product to be purchased at escalating rates with predatory loans. I especially worry about how UVM has been irresponsible with its growth and its outsized impact on the local housing crisis. Years of a refusal to consider the necessary questions about how big a land grant institution in a state the size of Vermont should be, continued calls for faculty and staff to do more and more as their wages continue to compress, and relying on the practice of simply shoving more students into unsustainable housing options have resulted in rising housing costs and increasing pressures on the surrounding community. I’m focused on policies that support accessible, affordable education and ensuring that students, faculty, and staff can thrive in environments dedicated to learning, not bloated administrative salaries.

My commitment also extends to labor rights and criminal justice reform which are fundamental to a just and equitable society. I am advocating for legislation that protects the right of higher education professionals to strike and ensures that severance pay is not exempt from public records requests. I am convinced that both of these factors played a significant role in UVM’s staff union arriving at an impasse with the administration during recent failed negotiations. Overworked staff currently await a decision by the state’s Labor Relations Board as they continue to provide their labor without a fair contract. Additionally, I will continue to advocate that the UVM Board of Trustees become more democratic with the addition of faculty and staff representation.

For those within our criminal justice system, I am working on measures to guarantee fair wages for labor performed by incarcerated individuals and to limit the profit margins on commissary items and phone calls. Additionally, I am pushing for reforms to ensure that young people under the age of 19 are treated within family courts as a default, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. These measures not only support fair treatment but also serve the larger goal of economic justice across our state.

I will continue to advocate for these and other priorities that support our community’s values in service to a more sustainable future for our district. As always, please do not hesitate to reach out with your thoughts, concerns, or ideas – I’m here to represent you. Thank you for your trust and for, once again, giving me this opportunity to serve.

Troy

/ /

The Pitfall of the Scarcity Mindset

I have a dear and long time friend who is a homeowner in Burlington and has lived in this district for far longer than I’ve been a State Representative. She is especially good at calling me into conversations where we may not begin from the same viewpoint. We talk about the issue, oftentimes finding our common ground, and I always have more to consider and a new perspective that will continue to assist me as that conversation then continues with others. I’ve written recently about how it remains critical, as our city’s administration is called into conversations about repairing harm to a former employee, that we understand how monetary settlements will often belong within our commitment to restorative practices. My friend recently asked me to consider how that potential settlement could be spent in so many other ways. This zero-sum approach to allocation of resources is a pitfall that commonly leads us in the wrong direction.

Our conversations often serve as a reminder that the challenges we face in our community require thoughtful dialogue, especially when we don’t see eye to eye. This is especially evident in the ongoing discussions about how Burlington simultaneously addresses systemic racism, the opioid crisis, and economic justice.

I can certainly understand why it might be hard to wrap our heads around a large settlement paid to one individual, but I think we’re missing the bigger picture if we focus only on that figure or when we reduce this issue to a simple conversation about money. The good news is that you and I don’t have to focus on the amount. We won’t have any impact on what gets settled. For me, my best involvement is with convincing the administration that monetary reparations are an appropriate component of restorative work and that the city has a clear history of resolving employment disputes and resolving harm caused with monetary solutions. What’s happening here is part of a deeper conversation about systemic problems, appropriately identified as sourced from the perpetuation of structural racism.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of pitting one issue against another, especially when resources feel scarce. When we, then, start imagining what all gets left behind or other ways to spend that money, we fall into the trap of zero-sum thinking. Settling a legitimate professional defamation complaint is a valid problem currently facing the administration and it’s one that they will likely need to spend money to resolve. That’s a truth we need to acknowledge alongside the conversation my friend initiated that then seeks to pivot into questions about how we best respond to our most vulnerable community members. Specifically, she contemplates the proposed settlement as in opposition to potential investments in youth services and the opioid crisis. When we fall into the trap of zero-sum thinking, we risk playing into the hands of a system that pits marginalized communities against one another, distracting us from the root causes of inequality.

The problem is not the money requested as severance, nor is it simply about how we allocate funds to deal with the substance use disorder crisis or after school programs. The real issue is how we’ve allowed these crises – both opioid addiction and the lack of youth programming – to get to this point by not addressing the root causes. We’ve created an economic system that allows for and encourages the hoarding of wealth by a very small minority of people. Such a system requires the perpetuation of poverty and the erasure of a strong middle class. Inappropriate wealth distribution has to get that wealth from somewhere. As a result, we underfund critical social services and now we’re scapegoating a Black woman in a high-profile position to avoid the uncomfortable truth that our society hasn’t equitably supported communities of color while we’ve also disregarded those struggling with addiction. When we commit to hiring a person with lived experiences to address how Burlington has also benefited from the legacies of white supremacy and racism, we have to prepare ourselves for learning some uncomfortable truth about how even Vermont is not immune. You don’t have to read very far on the various social media platforms to understand how the deliberate defamation of Tyeastia Green has so quickly morphed into armchair critics shouting about how this now becomes evidence for the dismantling of any commitment to sustaining an Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging. This is nothing more than well established systems of power and privilege spinning the narrative to preserve their power.

It’s important to step away from either-or thinking. We can and must allocate funding that responds to both the opioid crisis and on afterschool programs for kids. They aren’t in competition with each other. Both are symptoms of larger systemic failures – like income inequality and the lack of mental health support – that we need to address holistically. Framing it as one side winning while the other loses is dangerous and doesn’t move us toward solutions.

I want to also identify the language we’re seeing in various online debates that dehumanizes people suffering from addiction. It’s understandable to feel fear and frustration when we see people using drugs openly, especially near places like the King Street Center and schools – what should be a safe place for children to gather. Fear is a natural reaction when faced with the visible signs of the opioid crisis, especially when it’s happening near our kids. But we must resist the urge to dehumanize those suffering, recognizing that their struggles are a reflection of the system’s failures, not personal moral failings.

These members of our community are not “the problem” themselves – they’re suffering too. Dehumanizing them only worsens the situation by making us think we can solve it by excluding them from public spaces when, in reality, we need to treat the root causes of addiction, poverty, and the housing crisis. There’s a much bigger conversation about how we’ve avoided the federal responsibilities to fund mental health services since Reagan eliminated the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980. 

But let’s focus on the bigger question: how did we get to the point where both opioid addiction and a lack of youth services are putting people at risk? And how can we better support everyone, from kids to those struggling with addiction, instead of making them compete for scraps of funding?  And how do we learn to trust a Black woman to do her job even when that very job is designed to bring this community into critically needed conversations on hard to hear truths about inequity? How do we reframe the conversation to highlight how systemic issues can’t be addressed through scarcity thinking and invite this community to think more inclusively about possible solutions?

As always, I remain available and willing to continue the conversation. I’m fortunate and grateful for my friend who consistently keeps me practiced in the process by which we navigate those conversations from different starting points. I invite you all to join me in asking the hard questions, but also in seeking solutions that lift everyone up. Let’s commit to addressing the root causes rather than treating symptoms, and let’s do it without turning on each other.

/ /

In Continued Support of Tyeastia Green

I’m saddened by the fact that we are still needing to broadcast the continued mistreatment of Tyeastia Green, former Director of Burlington’s Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion & Belonging. I first attempted to draw attention to this mistreatment in August, 2023 with a blog post in support for Tyeastia’s ally and my dear friend Ferene Paris.

Below is my open letter to the Mayor and City Councilors urging them to commit to finding resolution to Ms. Green’s valid request for restitution. I hope you will engage in your own methods for encouraging our city to repair the harm we’ve caused.

 

In Continued Support of Tyeastia Green
October 12, 2024

Dear Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak and Burlington City Councilors,

I write today to join the recent collection of voices urging you to re-engage in good faith with Tyeastia Green, former Director of Burlington’s Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion & Belonging, and to acknowledge her response to the City’s initiation and invitation to negotiations of a potential settlement. I’m of the clear belief that when we initiate negotiations, to include potential monetary reparations, we are then obligated to remain engaged with those negotiations.

As someone who has been trained and certified in and long committed to engaging with conflict mediation from a commitment to restorative practices, I worry that the administration’s use of that term, at least in this instance, is falling into common traps that actually misuse the concept. In my roles as a student affairs professional at the University of Vermont as well as that of a state legislator, I consistently encounter processes in which a stated commitment to restorative practices is used, at best, superficially or trivially and, at worst, from a weaponized intention. I’ll assume best intentions with my engagement of this conflict.

To state it succinctly, restitution and reparations are restorative. While my understanding of the administration’s intent is limited to how it has been described by the recent Seven Days article, I fear that we have fallen into the trap in which restorative processes and resolutions are conceived of and defined as separate from or, possibly, incongruent to conversations that include monetary restitution. This preconceives the process for any sort of restorative engagement. To be clear, the core tenets of any restorative process ask, essentially, three questions: what were we thinking to arrive at this moment, what have we thought about since the conflict, and what needs to happen that will allow us to begin to repair the harm we have caused? Often times, monetary compensation to repair the harm caused to a person’s professional reputation will and should be named as a valid component of any resolution.

Our national conversation on reparations for the impact on generations of Americans that were formerly enslaved is a reasonable and analogous example for consideration. When we build a country and an economy through the enslavement of an entire race of people, when we build foundational wealth through the exploitation of that free and enslaved labor, and when that wealth then compounds exponentially before the descendants of that enslaved labor force are even allowed fair payment for their work, we must commit ourselves to engaging in the reasonable request for closing the resulting wealth gap. It is undeniable that our nation was built upon these systems of white supremacy. The resulting legacies of power and privilege will continue to seek and find ways to preserve themselves. The longer we allow that to happen by not engaging in the resulting conversations that stipulate reparations, we will continue to watch that wealth gap grow in obvious and exponentially inequitable ways.

The ways in which former Director Green’s professional reputation has been scapegoated and damaged by decisions and statements made by this city’s former administration, in clear violation of an existing non-disparagement clause, are well documented and easily verified. The hypocrisy by which a Black woman in a Director’s role has been overly scrutinized, especially when compared to the administrative negligence of white men in similar roles, has also been well documented and already cited into the public discourse surrounding this matter. The former administration’s actions have caused professional and lasting harm to Tyeastia Green and it remains a valid argument to state that this harm is sourced in the foundations of white supremacy and racism that pervade our structures of municipal governance. 

We can refer to countless examples by which the City of Burlington has responded to comparable harm with monetary reimbursement. Very recent monetary settlements, totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars, for inappropriate use of force incidents initiated by city employees, are easily found. Very recently, a severance package totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars accompanied this city’s decision to terminate its professional contract with at least one city employee. Clear evidence exists for how the City of Burlington is able to acknowledge harm caused and to then repair that harm with monetary restitution. Clear evidence simultaneously exists for how the City of Burlington ends an employment contract with severance pay.

We’re becoming more and more aware of instances in which the previous administration was not forthcoming about the fiscal mismanagement left for the new administration. I am saddened to learn that the former Mayor’s treatment of one of his Directors now continues to burden this administration’s budget. Regardless, the request for restitution is so clearly valid and reparations are so clearly warranted. Mayor and Councilors, I urge you to 1) acknowledge the harm caused to Tyeastia Green’s professional reputation by the City of Burlington, 2) provide fair monetary reimbursement to accommodate the resulting impact, and 3) reimburse Ms. Green for any and all costs and legal fees associated with her response to the neglectful inaction of the City of Burlington to date.

Respectfully,
Troy Headrick

/ /

A Disturbing Decision by UVM Administration

On Monday, June 17th, Erica Caloiero, UVM’s Vice Provost for Student Affairs, delivered a late afternoon email announcing the hiring of a new Executive Director of the Center for Health and Wellbeing (CHWB). Within that email, our Vice Provost mentions that this new Executive Director brings “a plan for improved efficiency and effectiveness for CHWB.” The announcement indicates that “in addition to integrating services, [the new Executive Director] will work on space dedicated to fostering comprehensive wellbeing by addressing physical, mental, and emotional health needs.”

The notification also includes quotes from the new Executive Director who states a passion for “optimizing student success and designing support initiatives that recognize the ways in which students today are different from even a few years ago.” The new Executive Director expresses gratitude “for the opportunity to join such a committed team at a university so clearly dedicated to providing the best possible care and support to all members of its community.”

What wasn’t explained by the Vice Provost within this email is how, prior to this announcement, she spent the day notifying critical staff members within the Center for Health and Wellbeing that their positions were terminated, effective immediately, without any prior notification. These staff members, directly responsible for the delivery of this stated dedication to “comprehensive wellbeing” include:

  • The Medical Director for Student Health
  • The Associate Director for Counseling and Psychiatry Services
  • The Associate Director for Education and Outreach
  • The Catamount Recovery Program Director who coordinated the programs by which we support students in recovery from various forms of addiction.
  • The Health and Sexuality Educator who has developed our university wide outreach and education efforts in response to the persistent impact of stigmas surrounding sexual health, awareness of consent within healthy relationships, and promotion of racial, social, and reproductive justice.
  • The Mindfulness Program Coordinator who promoted resilience within the context of the ever growing crisis of how mental health hurdles appear on campus – a critical resource that partners with our overburdened system for counseling and psychiatry services.
  • The Public Health Initiatives Manager, the only position on campus who was responsible for centralizing our health equity approaches to public health planning and policy, our public health program design and implementation, and the overall coordination of our public health frameworks.
  • The Operations Coordinator who managed the administrative functions of the Education and Outreach staff in their delivery of public health care and support for struggling students.
  • The Communications Manager for the Division of Student Affairs, who co-authored an overarching and holistic health and wellbeing communications plan to be adopted by a number of university partners.
  • Additionally, following a recent resignation of an Educational Training Manager responsible for campus support around areas of suicide prevention, eating disorders, and mental health literacy, there is no anticipated plan to replace those provided services.

These staff members, with a combined 70+ years of experience, represent the team on campus that are absolutely critical for designing and delivering the support network for our students who regularly and consistently need assistance responding to the pressures associated with the expectations placed on today’s college student. In my role with the Center for Student Conduct, I interact with the Education and Outreach team regularly as we develop interventions for students who are disregarding community expectations often because they are battling mental health struggles including substance abuse and misuse, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and various other struggles that have long been intercepted by these outstanding support professionals. That team of outstanding professionals has been dismantled and all but eliminated.

In the most recent bargaining session between UVM Staff United and the administration, now in the fourth month of contract negotiations marked by administrative stalling techniques and counter proposals that can be fairly classified as in poor faith to that process, Chief Human Resources Officer Chris Lehman communicated the University’s position that, if our staff members want to increase their wages, they should simply find a different job that pays more. These sorts of comments betray the obvious administrative strategy to simply cycle employees in and out of their positions in order to artificially keep salary costs low. This is not how you serve students, build a reliable staff, or strengthen the surrounding community. This is not how you build a sustainable workforce that benefits from continued expertise and stability. The costs associated with the constant hiring, training, and onboarding of staff members are significant. The impact on our ability to recruit and retain qualified staff members within the resulting impact of wage compression and stagnation is easily tracked.

I’m worried and saddened by the increasing commodification of Higher Education that is so hyper focused on the bottom line budgets without regard for the overall wellbeing of our students (or staff and faculty, for that matter). Success in the classroom that will ultimately produce our next generation of leaders is most certainly compromised when a strong network of student support is absent. To watch that absence develop by intentional design is heartbreaking.

It is my clear observation that the UVM administration is placing the burdens of austerity onto the shoulders of students through an irresponsible increase in revenue generating out-of-state students shoved into more and more crowded housing options while decreasing the support systems designed to respond to the resulting pressures. This, while refusing to pay their staff a competitive wage while decreasing the overall services provided for student support.

I don’t have an ask with this post other than to encourage my surrounding community to remain critical of how our flagship land grant state university is morphing from the once great institution that has sat, quite literally, upon the hill for generations into another unfortunate example of a money grabbing vehicle for the elite.

/ , /

My Statement on Reports Pertaining to the Training Provided to Burlington Students by the Burlington Police Department

To begin, I do not have any inside information pertaining to the story that is currently breaking about the “training exercise” recently delivered by Burlington Police to a group of Burlington students. My sources of information are likely to be the same sources to which the readers of this blog post would have access. In the Seven Days article posted today, the exercise is described as having a masked gunman burst into the room while firing actual gunshots (presumed blanks). The Reddit discussion on the incident includes reports from self-identified in-person participants and describes the scene that included students diving to the floor out of legitimate fear, expressed casings located on the floor in the aftermath, and a valid disbelief of those participants and their parents.

I am a lifelong educator who has spent a significant portion of my career designing training curriculum for delivery to college aged students across a vast variety of topics. I am nothing but horrified that anyone could have designed, approved, or delivered this sort of training, especially within the context of the pandemic of school violence in which we live. Our students are already trained on the unfortunate realities of how to respond to the very plausible likelihood that the next school shooting could very easily happen within their own classroom. For the Burlington Police Department to develop and deliver a “training exercise” that involves the staging of a surprise attack by a masked gunman firing actual gunshots (blanks or otherwise) is absolutely and without question indicative of leadership within that department that is so clearly out of touch and anything but able or willing to serve from a trauma informed perspective.

I am grateful to have complete and unconditional confidence in our Mayor’s ability to respond to this incident. That being said, my clearly stated hope is that BPD leadership come to the understanding of the scope of impact this incident has had on perpetuating the trauma of our school students and our community at large. With that understanding, it is my continued expectation that any person in leadership who had knowledge of or played a role in approving the delivery of this training exercise resign their position immediately. The harm and trauma likely to have been caused by this incident is horrifying and inexcusable.

/ /

A Brief Summary of Pending Legislation from 2024

As predicted at the start of the 2024 legislative Governor Scott has created a political landscape that has presented hurdle after hurdle to our commitment for creating policy that truly moves Vermont toward economic, environmental, and racial justice. With his State of the State Address Governor Scott portrayed himself as a “realist” while preemptively scapegoating the legislative supermajority and the role we collectively play in serving our constituents as we create responsive policy. This isn’t leadership. This isn’t being a realist. It’s an abdication of collaboration and a disregard for the legislative process. Governor Scott has shown a clear inability or unwillingness, along with much of his administration, to execute or respond to Vermonters in crisis. We remain at a moment calling for courageous change to the status quo. Your Progressive House and Senate Caucus, once again, reminds the Governor that Vermonters have elected progressive policy makers to the General Assembly in overwhelming numbers. The House and Senate Progressives remain committed to collaborating with our colleagues to create transformative policy that keeps us moving toward a more equitable and just Vermont.

The Governor’s facade of moderation is betrayed by his unprecedented use of vetoes to govern the state. This approach prevents well vetted policy created by a tri-partisan legislature from advancing and it stonewalls the state’s ability to deliver meaningful policy that would address our many serious crisis points: climate, opioid addiction, housing, economic inequality, and continued attacks on BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ communities. These crisis points accelerate the undeniable increase in crime and we must address these sources rather than merely fear mongering the resulting indicators.

The Governor’s tired approach of governing by veto is showcased in his recent disregard of the Senate’s overwhelming rejection of his choice for who would lead Vermont’s education system. Within minutes of the Senate’s 19-9 vote to not confirm Zoie Saunders as the Secretary of Education, Governor Scott disregarded the legislative action and appointed Ms. Saunders as the interim Secretary. Governor Scott has no respect or concern for the checks and balances of our government. Our next step in our commitment to serving Vermonters from an ethic of care will be to override the many vetoes we anticipate receiving from the Governor in response to our legislative acknowledgment to Vermont’s call for justice and equity.

Here is a brief (not exhaustive) list of the legislation we passed this year and what to watch over the next few weeks as the Governor once again wields his veto power.

Opioid Use Response and Healthcare
H.72: An act relating to a harm-reduction criminal justice response to drug use
This bill will create an overdose prevention center pilot in Burlington in order to prevent fatal overdoses, provide access to harm-reduction services (sterile equipment, drug-checking, and naloxone), reduce pressures on emergency rooms and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and to provide access to referrals for substance use disorder treatment.

H.766: An act relating to prior authorization and step therapy requirements, health insurance claims, and provider contracts
This bill gives primary health care providers more flexibility to order tests and procedures for their patients and eliminates the need for prior authorization from insurance providers for the patients of primary care doctors.

S.114: An act relating to the establishment of the Psychedelic Therapy Advisory Working Group
This bill creates a study of the possible mental health benefits of psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelic drugs.

Climate, Environment, and Energy
H.289: An act relating to the Renewable Energy Standard
This bill requires every utility in Vermont to source all of its power from renewable resources by 2035. The bill also requires a Public Service Department report on policy options to ensure that low and moderate income families benefit equitably from new solar power generation and options for replacement of group net metering for community solar projects.

H.687: An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use
This bill reforms Act 250 and requires a commitment to environmental justice by each member of the new Land Use Review Board. Additionally, the bill creates:

  • The requirement that Regional Planning Commissions comply with environmental justice “meaningful participation” and environmental burden/benefit analysis standards
  • Interim housing density development exemptions from Act 250
  • Zoning improvements for hotels and motels converted to permanently affordable housing
  • Affordable Housing Development Regulatory Incentives Study for establishing affordable housing development requirements or incentives in Act 250-deregulated areas (Tier 1a or 1b Status areas)
  • A study on eviction prevention programs


H.706: An act relating to banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides
This bill would ban the sale or use of neonicotinoids (a known threat to pollinators) in Vermont.

S.25: An act relating to regulating cosmetic and menstrual products containing certain chemicals and chemical classes and textiles and athletic turf fields containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
This bill would limit the use of PFAS “forever chemicals” in many products. The ban would include all clothing, diapers, menstrual products, makeup, and cookware by 2026 and then extend to turf by 2028.

S.259: An act relating to climate change cost recovery
This bill creates a first of its kind fund that requires fossil fuel companies to reimburse the state for climate change related damages.

Public Safety
H.883: An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government (the general budget)
The FY2025 budget includes line item funding for multiple new positions within the court system to alleviate the significant backlog that currently inhibits resolution of thousands of cases for justice involved individuals.

H. 28 (signed as Act 5): An act relating to diversion and expungement
Act 5 amends the State’s diversion laws to permit individuals who have satisfactorily met all diversion requirements to be eligible for expungement prior to the case being dismissed by the prosecutor.

H.121:An act relating to enhancing consumer privacy and the age-appropriate design code
This bill creates significant protections for Vermonters against Big Tech’s use of consumer information. The bill also gives individual Vermonters the right to sue for private damages against big data businesses that exploit their personal data.

H.645: An act relating to the expansion of approaches to restorative justice
This bill creates pre-charge diversion options for various misdemeanors and enhances post-charge diversion options.

H.876: An act relating to miscellaneous amendments to the corrections laws
This bill makes numerous improvements to corrections policy, including the creation of a study on improving visitation protocols and programming space for children of incarcerated parents. The bill also expresses legislative intent to end our use of for-profit, out of state prisons by 2034.

S.195: An act relating to how a defendant’s criminal record is considered in imposing conditions of release
This bill creates additional support and supervision for individuals who have been released with various conditions prior to trial.

Concerning “public safety” legislation
H.534: An act relating to retail theft
This bill increases the penalties and classifications for instances where a defendant commits multiple retail thefts within 14 days and that exceeds $900 in value. New penalties include consideration of felony charges that may include up to 10 years of incarceration. Your Progressive caucus agrees with the concerns presented by ACLU of Vermont who remind us that “extreme and excessive sentencing is a major driver of mass incarceration and H.534 represents a major step backwards on criminal justice reform.”

S.58: An act relating to public safety
This bill increases the potential for incarceration for various drug offenses and expands the process by which children as young as 16 years of age are presumptively charged as adults. S.58 once again delays the “raise the age” legislation passed in the previous biennium that was intended to presumptively charge all defendants aged 19 and younger within the family court system. Your Progressive House Caucus opposed this legislation at every possible moment of debate and procedural advancement.

Again, Governor Scott is likely to continue his clear trend of vetoing legislation that protects Vermonters in significant and ground breaking ways. If you have any personal investment in the bills listed above, I urge you to contact the Governor with your stated expectation that he pass the legislation handed to him.

As always, do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, concerns, or need for continued conversation on any of the legislation we passed during the 2024 session. It has been an absolute honor to represent the Chittenden 15 district in Montpelier and I look forward to any continued connections we might find.

Troy

/ /

Update on the Just Cause Eviction Charter Change

You are likely to hear about the Burlington Just Cause Eviction Protections Charter Change as we resume conversations on the legislative component of finalizing that amendment. I want to provide details to the process by which we are attempting to, once again, honor the will of Burlington voters.

On Town Meeting Day, 2021, Burlington voters approved a charter change that would create an amendment to the charter of the City of Burlington to authorize the City Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the eviction of residential tenants without just cause. That vote passed with 64% in favor of the amendment in all 8 wards and after having been thoroughly vetted by three committees of the City Council. The vote to pursue the amendment was approved by City Council with a vote of 10-2 including affirmation from Democrats, Progressives, and one Independent.

Once a charter change is approved by a municipality’s voters, the State Legislature is required to grant final approval. Burlington’s charter change passed the House on February 18, 2022, passed the Senate (with amendments) on April 8, 2022, and then received House approval of the Senate amendments on April 15, 2022. The Governor vetoed the charter change on May 3, 2022 and the House failed to override that veto by one vote.

Since then, former Representative Mulvaney-Stanek has consistently requested that we return the matter to the full body for another vote and has been joined by Representative Small of Winooski who has been advocating for a similar charter change on behalf of Winooski who passed their amendment in 2022. Essex and Montpelier have also now each passed similar amendments.

In response, we have been asked to delay the process pending the creation of a statewide policy that would prohibit no-cause evictions. Unfortunately, we have also been consistently reminded of how difficult it would be to create such a statewide policy. I, along with the other remaining Progressive Representatives, were encouraged by the fact that the House Committee on General and Housing had begun working on H. 829, an act relating to creating permanent upstream eviction protections and enhancing housing stability. Unfortunately, this bill purporting to create eviction protections did not do so in any significant way. 

Accordingly, the same Progressive Representatives offered an amendment that would create a moratorium to no-cause evictions until a statewide policy could be drafted. That amendment was found to be unfavorable on a vote of 6-2-4. We have been repeatedly told to wait for a statewide policy on just cause evictions to be developed. We have also been repeatedly told how difficult it is to develop a statewide policy on just cause evictions. Now, when the only bill purporting to create permanent upstream eviction protections arrives, leadership refuses to accept an amendment that would create those very protections.

Currently, we have not yet had the opportunity to have the full debate on the amendment with the entire body. I anticipate that will happen on Tuesday, April 2nd. House leadership has two opportunities right now:
1. Allow the charter changes for Burlington, Winooski, Essex, and Montpelier on the floor for full debate, or
2. Support the amendment to H. 829 offered by Representative Small and others.

If you would like to contact House leadership to encourage either option, you can do so easily with this action step:
https://actionbutton.nationbuilder.com/share/SPK-QEBAREA=

As always, reach out should you wish to have a more detailed conversation.

Troy

/ /

Clearing the Air on Construction of a New Correctional Facility for Justice Involved Women

I want to begin by clearly stating my gratitude for all of the advocacy groups that are working so hard to support and serve Vermont women who are currently incarcerated. This includes the Vermont Network, Kids Apart and the Lund Organization, Vermont Works for Women, the ACLU of Vermont, and the FreeHer Vermont campaign. I want to state my clear commitment to doing everything within my power to keep all of those advocates in the room and up to date as we manage the process by which we decide the future of a replacement facility for the current Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CRCF).

I also feel the need to correct the record about where we are in that process. I serve on the House Committee for Corrections and Institutions. This is the committee within the House of Representatives that sets the capital budget by which we build and maintain state buildings through our bonding process. We are also the committee that initiates any policy changes within the Department of Corrections. Given these two charges, our committee will be involved with any design implementation for any new correctional facility. While initial planning and conceptual design has begun for a replacement to CRCF, we have not had any detailed or significant conversations about actual design.

The Capital Bill is the vehicle by which the capital budget is approved by the House and, then, the Senate. The capital budget is unique in that it is a two year budget. During the second year of a biennium, we can adjust the budget through the Budget Adjustment Act if it appears that projects are delayed and the bonds issued would be better served in another location. This is an important distinction as we discuss the process by which funds have been allocated for a new facility.

We set the capital budget of the fiscal years for 2024 and 2025 (FY24/25) last year with H.493, an act relating to capital construction and State bonding, that became Act 69 once it was signed by the Governor. With Act 69 we allocated $1.5 million in FY24 and $13 million in FY25 for the planning and design of a replacement facility for CRCF. These allocations are designated only for planning and design. Ahead of those allocations, we took testimony from The Vermont Network, ACLU, and FreeHer Vermont. This testimony included testimony from FreeHer Vermont regarding proposed legislation that would halt the design process for a new facility. The bills we considered, along with this testimony, as we prepared the capital budget during the 2023 session are as follows:

S. 14 – An Act Relating to a Report on Criminal Justice Related Investments and Trends
H. 438 – An Act Relating to a Working Group to Develop a Plan to Eliminate Incarceration
H. 795 – An Act to Creating an Earned Allowance Program

We incorporated concepts from the presentations of FreeHer Vermont into language within the capital bill and made certain to add FreeHer Vermont to an ongoing working group of various advocates that are working with the Department of Corrections (DOC) through the initial design process. To date, the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions (HCI) has not requested any sort of detailed report from that working group. We are not anywhere near the point by which design approval from the committee is required. The working group will continue to meet with DOC and all the involved advocacy groups will continue to have access to that process. That being said, the committee also made the decision to not halt the design process and gave the Department of Buildings and General Services (BGS) the authority to search for a suitable site that would house a replacement facility for CRCF. Act 69, at the time of passing, required BGS to consider state owned property for the siting of a replacement facility.

HCI has completed the Budget Adjustment Act (BAA), H.882, and voted it out of committee favorably on a vote of 11-0-0. H. 882 is currently in draft form 7.1. This means that all committee members were present and we all voted favorably. The committee is composed of 6 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and I serve as the sole Progressive vote. While considering and debating the BAA, we did not make any adjustments to the budget allotments totaling $14.5 million for FY24/25. The Governor’s proposed budget also made no changes to those allotments. Given the fact that we did not make any adjustments to that section of the capital bill, we did not take any new testimony. I have heard current estimates that a new facility will likely cost between $70 and $90 million dollars. I will note that this is far different than the $500 million price tag that has been quoted to me as what we intend to spend on construction.

We did make changes to language within the budget that pertains to the replacement facility. First, we approved the ability for BGS to also consider purchasing private land for siting a new facility and approved any such purchase during the off session when our committee is not active. BGS did not bypass any legislative process pertaining to the acquisition of land or the design process for a replacement facility. Second, we required that any land determined suitable for a replacement facility be in reasonable proximity to the existing workforce of the current facility in order to facilitate the retention and continuity of our experienced staff. Finally, we changed the date by which the Commissioner of BGS shall submit a site location proposal from January of 2024 to January 15 2025. BGS is required to support a quarterly report beginning in July, 2024 pertaining to the status of land acquisition.

HCI also now requires a report from BGS to the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions and the Senate Committees on Institutions and Judiciary regarding the feasibility of utilizing the current site of the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility as a potential location for designing and constructing a reentry facility for eligible justice-involved men following the construction of a replacement facility for justice-involved women. We have not approved, in any way, the initiation of any planning or design of such a facility. While this does indicate that we intend to proceed with replacing CRCF, it is important to realize that the current facility exists within the bounds of the Potash Brook watershed. Zoning approvals that existed when CRCF was built have likely changed in significant ways. We will absolutely need to know what limitations may now be in place once we decommission the current facility. Given the location of the site, it provides strong potential for developing alternative housing options for justice involved individuals especially those nearing the end of their sentence who would benefit from a transitional reentry facility close to employment opportunities. This is precisely the type of alternative housing the Committee for Corrections and Institutions has been asked to consider.

The entire House Committee for Corrections and Institutions is in tri-partisan agreement that the current CRCF is an abhorrent and outdated facility that perpetuates the trauma often associated with those who have become involved with our justice system. Delaying the construction of a new facility will only prolong the duration by which justice involved women are housed in those conditions. We have to be pragmatic about the fact that Vermont does not currently have the infrastructure required to implement a complete abolition of prisons. It is important to realize that there is also a lack of political agreement that abolition is possible. To illustrate this fact, I highlight the reality that only 3 of the 11 committee members were willing to commit to divesting from our use of private for-profit prisons by 2034. While we were able to convince the committee to place intent language into H. 876, an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to the corrections laws, to support and encourage that divestment, intent is not statute. This is a reliable indicator for the absence of the necessary political appetite for abolishing prisons.

I disagree with the statement that there is no such thing as a trauma-informed prison. We can absolutely design a new facility mindful of the fact that prisons, as we have known them, have undoubtedly perpetuated trauma. Early in my arrival to the State House, I am on record for indicating the very real truth that, fifty years ago, somebody sat in my seat and approved the design and construction of CRCF as perfectly acceptable. It is not, in any sense, an acceptable facility. I most certainly worry that I sit in that same seat, amidst my own hubris, convinced that we can build something better that won’t be derided as equally abhorrent fifty years from now. But I am obligated to proceed with a pragmatic understanding of the political arena that surrounds me. This, alongside with the fact that we must end our use of the current Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility, will continue to inform how I arrive at these decisions.

As always, I am committed to continuing this conversation in any manner that would feel appreciated.

/ /

State Auditor’s Report on the MOU Between the City of Burlington and UVM

The State Auditor’s office has recently released it’s report pertaining to the impact UVM enrollment has had on the Burlington housing crisis. Both Burlington City Councilors and UVM Trustees had been largely unaware of the fact that this report was pending, Since January, I have encouraged both of those bodies to pressure UVM leadership and the outgoing Mayor’s office for more openness. UVM Administration and Mayor Weinberger had known this report was being prepared as early as the first week in December, 2023.I’ve been very vocal on behalf of my constituents who have been requesting more significant guard rails before finalizing any agreement to the MOU between UVM and the City of Burlington. In short, I’ve requested that the MOU contain:1. A commitment from the University to permanently end the practice of using “forced triples” for on-campus housing.2. A commitment from UVM to formulate a deliberate strategy for housing more upperclass students in campus housing – including the consideration of subsidizing housing for first generation and low income students.3. A commitment from UVM to a long term enrollment plan that provides more specific benchmarks beyond the generic “we’re about where we want to be for enrollment”. Ideally, this enrollment plan would account for a mindfulness of the impact that UVM has on the surrounding rental vacancy rate.

Upon my initial reading, the Auditor’s report widely validates the concerns I have reported. I encourage you to read the full report. Please let me know if you have any access concerns with this link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5705lC2Q35iDt0uu_tpGYR3dHlqO766/view?usp=sharing

Highlights from the report are as follows:“UVM student count growth accounts for more than two-thirds of all Burlington population growth since 1990.”

“Compliance with previous agreements between the City and UVM has been mixed. The available data suggests that their combined effect on the Burlington housing market has not reduced off campus housing pressures.”

“Burlington’s population growth since the first UVM MOU has been modest. In 1990 Burlington’s population was 39,127, and rose to 44,595 in 2022, an increase of 5,468. During the same period, UVM’s total student enrollment grew by 4,993. While comprehensive historical data is not available, using the assumption first offered by UVM that approximately 80% of off-campus students reside in Burlington, we conclude that most of Burlington’s population growth the last three decades is attributable to UVM enrollment growth and that one of every four Burlington residents is a UVM student.”

“In addition, we find that UVM’s housing strategy during the performance period relied at least in part on the use of “forced triples.” The term refers to the conversion of double rooms, designed to comfortably accommodate two residents, into triple rooms by adding an extra bed. Sometimes utilized on campuses as a temporary solution during peak admission periods or unexpected housing shortages, “forced triples” have become a more permanent strategy at some universities to address the disparity between the number of students and available housing capacity. ”

Please do not hesitate to reach out with resulting concerns or question. My advice to the City Council will be to request far more significant guard rails before finalizing any agreement.

Troy

/ /

My Signature on the Legislative Letter Calling for a Ceasefire

Friends and Neighbors,

By now many of you have likely already learned of a pending letter from elected state officials that will ask the Biden administration to advocate for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas while ending our continued arms sales or military aid to the nation of Israel. I’ve already written this response to a few of our neighbors who reached out directly and want to share my reasons for signing the letter. My apologies for including statements I’ve already made within those responses.

I know that my response is going to disappoint some of you and I certainly know the feeling of realizing that those I’ve helped to elect are in such distinct disagreement with my own values. For those of you for whom that becomes true, I’m truly sorry to be that disappointment for you now. Please know that I hope to preserve our relationship as neighbors even within what is likely to be a profound divergence of values.

One form letter is circulating demanding that we, as legislators, educate ourselves on the matter before taking the step of signing any such letter. While I define my educational journey as a constant and emerging commitment, I’ll ask that you trust that I make any decisions such as this from a place centered in that commitment. My decision is not arbitrary or uninformed even though I may have reached a conclusion that differs from yours.

I am a pacifist. I can recall my earliest moment of realizing that understanding. It happened while I was in the fourth grade and I’m happy to share the more detailed story with anyone who would like to hear it. I’m old enough to have lived through a few periods of time where a reinstatement of the draft was a very real possibility and I’m also a would-be conscientious objector to any war. I will always support movement toward a ceasefire and a commitment to reconciliation and reparative justice.

The unfortunate reality is that we live in a world trapped in a perpetual cycle of war. On any given day, there will always be various nations who find themselves residing on any point of that cycle. This is especially true within the region surrounding Israel and Palestine. On October 7th, I braced myself against the news of yet another brutal assault from Hamas that resulted in the deaths and kidnapping of innocent Israelis. I prepared myself for what I would certainly define as a warranted response from Israel despite my own continued hopes that we might not carry through the cycle as we always have. I’m saddened by how that response has now crossed any threshold of what would be considered warranted, proportionate, or reasonable.

The military industrial complex is also incredibly profitable. I disagree with the notion that we as a local or state community have no standing within a deliberate response or call to action when our own government continues to profit by engaging within this cycle. When municipalities stand in opposition to war such as many Burlington residents have recently attempted, state officials are asked to listen and consider that stand. When states stand in opposition, as we are attempting with this letter, our federal leaders are called upon to listen and reflect on the emerging collective voice. This is precisely how a democracy thrives. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world (Margaret Mead).

To restate it, I’m truly sorry to disappoint some of you with my actions in this instance. I hope our disagreement can exist within a mutual respect nonetheless.

With continued hopes of peace,
Troy

1 2 3