Legislative Updates

Friends and neighbors,

I will have a more detailed discussion on my policy priorities soon. Ahead of that, I want to apply some very specific focus to the education funding crisis we will most certainly be asked to consider soon into the new session.

Our education funding process needs correction. As we move into this process, we must remain mindful and deliberate to avoid over-correcting — something that often happens when we collectively realize a system isn’t as functional as it should be. It’s easy to get lured into a knee-jerk, fix-all “solution” that simplifies complex problems with broad campaign rhetoric, particularly when words like “affordability” dominate the conversation.

Vermont has built a public school funding model that prioritizes fairness and recognizes the unique challenges facing different communities. It’s a model that doesn’t just count students — it weighs their needs. This weighted system ensures that schools with higher numbers of students living in poverty, English language learners, and other vulnerable populations get the resources they need to help all students thrive. This is critical, especially in our less wealthy towns and cities.

I’m increasingly concerned that this critical system — one that serves communities like Burlington — could be at risk. As we enter a new legislative session, some players may feel emboldened by what they perceive as a mandate for sweeping overhaul.

Recently, outside consultants and analysts have started broadcasting recommendations for “efficiency” in Vermont’s public education system. On paper, their data may look sound. But when we dig deeper, it often fails to account for Vermont’s unique realities. Vermont isn’t California. Vermont isn’t Texas. We’re not New York. Our state has small, rural schools that are lifelines to their communities. We also have districts like Burlington and Winooski, where student needs are deeply tied to challenges such as poverty and language access.

In rural Vermont, consolidation often comes with punishing trade-offs: students spending hours every day on long bus rides, schools disappearing as community hubs, and families losing connections that make rural life work. I know some in Burlington view consolidation as part of the solution to urban challenges. These are fair conversations to have, but we can’t lose sight of the real fight — protecting Vermont’s commitment to equity through the weighted funding system. This means equity for all of Vermont.

If we allow this debate to be sidelined by a redirection to false choices that are becoming weaponized between “efficiency” and “consolidation,” we risk losing focus on what matters most: equity. When weighted funding is threatened, it’s not just Burlington students who lose — it’s rural families, too.

This is where our interests align. We must stay alert to attempts to divide us or play the zero-sum game of polarization. Urban and rural Vermont both depend on a fair funding model that weighs the legitimate needs of our children — needs that have been validated time and time again. If we let equity be sidelined in the name of “efficiency,” we all pay the price, leaving behind Vermont’s most vulnerable students.

Broad calls for cost-cutting and consolidation — framed as solutions to “overspending” — fail to address these realities. Instead, they threaten the very commitments to equity that have defined Vermont’s public education system. When efficiency becomes the goal, equity often becomes sidelined — if not disregarded altogether. And when equity is sidelined, the students who need our support the most are the first to pay the price.

We cannot let that happen. In Burlington, where our schools serve a large population of English language learners and families living in poverty, the weighted funding system is not just policy — it’s a lifeline. It provides critical resources for students to learn, grow, and succeed. Without it, we risk abandoning the very families who rely on us the most.

I want to state my commitment clearly: I will not quietly allow efficiency to become an excuse for inequity. I am fully invested in protecting Vermont’s weighted funding system and ensuring it continues to serve every student in Burlington and across our state.

Our values demand it. Our kids deserve it.

As this conversation develops, let’s not lose sight of what’s at stake. Equity isn’t optional. It’s essential.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

As we prepare to begin the 2024 legislative session, I want to provide a summary of the legislation that I anticipate will take primary focus for me. The Progressive caucus has not yet completed its legislative priorities, but these are the areas I’ll be bringing to that discussion. This, of course, does not preclude any items you feel are also important. I remain nothing but grateful for the opportunity to represent the Chittenden 15 district and I urge you all to keep in contact with me if you need me to advocate for any particular legislation on your behalf.

That being said, here is my current set of priorities. 

Within the Corrections and Institutions committee:
I anticipate we will begin the session by making certain all allocations are in place to fund the repairs of state properties that were damaged by the flood this summer. Earlier this fall, our committee received a briefing from the Vermont Department of Building and General Services (BGS) along with updates from Doug Farnham, the recently appointed Chief Recovery Officer. Our committee works frequently with BGS and they have my absolute confidence in their ability to manage the many projects that have resulted from the flood. Similarly, I was impressed and am grateful for the attention the Chief Recovery Officer is putting into the process by which we leverage as much federal money as we can while jumping through all of the hoops provided by our insurance entities. The recovery process from hurricane Irene in 2011 provides a very appropriate blueprint for how we will move forward.

In addition to finalizing these recovery processes, we will be reviewing the recently submitted Report on the Women’s Correctional Facility provided by the Department of Corrections (DOC). I anticipate our conversation will center on land acquisition and the continued design process for a new facility. During the offseason, I made it a point to meet with representatives of various advocacy groups as this conversation continues. As you can imagine viewpoints on whether or not we should be building any new facility range across a continuum. I have met with Vermont’s advocate from the Free Her campaign, the ACLU of Vermont, the State Employee’s union (VSEA), an advocate from the Vermont Network, and one from Kids Apart. Each of these advocates has dedicated so much time and energy into providing support and voice to women who are currently incarcerated along with the children and families who surround them. They have all been involved with ongoing updates from DOC on the process by which a new facility is considered and designed. The advocacy from these groups spans from a call to a complete abolition of prisons to those making certain we provide a full spectrum of wrap-around services to incarcerated women and their families. There is no disagreement on the fact that the current women’s correctional facility is abhorrent and inhumane. While engaged in this discussion, I try to frequently remind myself that somebody in my position sat on a committee 50 years ago and approved the design of that detestable facility as “perfectly fine”. I worry that such decisions are made in the midst of an ignorant hubris that I must most certainly carry myself, just as my predecessors did the last time we constructed a prison. Philosophically, I align with the prison abolition movement and remain convinced that we have the capacity to develop a society where prisons are most certainly obsolete as envisioned by the great Angela Davis. The legislative process, however, requires pragmatism and an honest reckoning with the fact that we have not created the support systems we would need to divest completely from a new facility. In my opinion, the current facility simply must be decommissioned. This leaves me with an understanding that we need a new facility that can accommodate all of the amazing work being done by the above mentioned advocacy groups. I’m grateful for a conversation I had with Sarah Robinson of the Vermont Network, also a resident of our district, who is helping me to frame this disappointing realization with a commitment that we are building the final women’s correctional facility this state will ever build. I welcome continued conversation on the process.

Our committee will also be engaging with the decisions that need to be made as we prepare to create additional dedicated space for justice involved youth. We remain, in the midst of having closed the Woodside facility, with no concrete process by which we accommodate our most vulnerable population that is currently intersecting with the justice system. This is actually a pretty good example of what happens when we decommission a facility before we have prepared to accommodate the population with supportive alternatives. Justice involved youth are at risk of continued harm when we are forced to place them, even temporarily, within an adult facility. I know we’ll be asked to consider a temporary facility as we continue the conversation about how to address the issue more permanently.

Finally, the Vermont Futures Caucus is working on legislation that would decrease the sentence of an incarcerated individual in response to a commitment to seeking a degree. I have not seen the specifics of the bill yet, but I am excited to assist the process by which we make it a priority. I am so encouraged and motivated by the work that is being done by our next generation of Vermont leaders.

Bills I will introduce:
I have requested a draft of a bill that will be based on California law AB933, recently passed legislation that provides protection to sexual assault survivors from weaponized defamation lawsuits. I am encouraged by the fact that this draft was also requested by the Chair of the Judiciary Committee where the debate will ultimately originate. I have spent the majority of my professional career working with college aged men to interrupt and end the campus rape culture. In my current position with the Center for Student Conduct, I work adjacent to the process by which Title IX sexual misconduct allegations are investigated and adjudicated. I have been frustrated on more than one occasion when a survivor/victim of sexual assault names an assailant only to have that person then initiate or threaten a defamation lawsuit. As we navigate our society’s response to the empowering #MeToo movement we are encountering a predictable push back by those who have always been free to wield their power and privilege served by the structured misogyny and patriarchy that pervades. Defamation lawsuits have flourished as one such method for this push back. This legislation will seek to respond.

I have also requested a draft that will amend the current statute 33 V.S.A. 5201. This amendment will require criminal cases against youths under 18 to start in the Family Division even in cases involving the “big 12” crimes (arson causing death, assault and robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault and robbery causing bodily injury, aggravated assault, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping , unlawful restraint, maiming, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and burglary into an occupied dwelling). This is in direct response to the recent decision to charge a 14 year old child as an adult after what appears to be an accidental shooting. I anticipate that this amendment will be broadly supported by the Defender’s General office as well as the Department of Corrections.

Finally, I am thrilled to be working with a UVM student to amend the standing order for the Vermont Department of Health to distribute opioid antagonists to assist those at risk of experiencing an opioid-related overdose. The amendment would expand the delivery of Naloxone and the education for how to administer. This will include defining categories of businesses and organizations identified by the Department as having a moderate to high likelihood of interfacing with an individual experiencing an opioid-related overdose.

Bills I am watching and hope to influence:
H.523 is an act relating to amending the prohibitions against discrimination and harassment. This is a committee bill with the Education Committee in response to a loophole created when we created harassment and bullying protections in the workplace at the end of the 2023 session. I hope to also have this bill include protections for teachers from interference we are seeing across the country with curriculum censorship and book bans. H.106 is the bill I introduced last year that proposes to protect the academic freedom of public educators and their right to teach on matters of gender identity and systemic and structural racism. I believe the intent of that bill can find an obvious place in the Education Committee’s current bill.

H.446 is an act relating to the reconstitution of the UVM Board of Trustees to add faculty and staff representation. I have profound concerns on the morale of our faculty and staff as the current UVM administration continues to steamroll its policy approach without regard to the effect we are having on the surrounding community. I worry that continued demands from these labor groups are having an obvious and negative impact on our ability to retain talented personnel or to recruit the next generation of educators. Creating a more democratic Board of Trustees format is critical

Similarly, I will be watching the development of the Memorandum of Understanding between UVM and the City as we commit to zoning for future development. I am still hoping to convince my colleagues in the State House that UVM is ultimately a charter of the General Assembly and that we have an obligation to hold them accountable when they’re not being a good neighbor.
Please recall the bill I introduced last year that may apply to these endeavors. H.311 seeks to have UVM slow down enrollment expansion until our rental vacancy rate can handle it.

Finally, S.18 is an act relating to banning flavored tobacco products and e-liquids. This bill has passed out of the Senate and is now within the House. This is critical legislation that will impact a direct decrease in the number of Vermont youth who become addicted to nicotine.

Update: Since my initial writing of these thoughts, Burlington Police have arrested a 48 year old white male for the shootings.

In the late 1990s I was working for the Department of Residential Life at UVM and was tasked with developing a response to an increase in graffiti that, by today’s terms, would be classified as targeting others on a basis of their perceived identity. The University was still newly committed to developing a considered and consistent response to hate speech and I was grateful to be part of a department and division that was stepping up and into that commitment. As part of that response, we began to cover the graffiti during the pending period before it could be properly removed. We placed a poster over the area that clearly stated “Hate Happened Here”. We began the deliberate process of naming what had become unfortunately normalized as “typical graffiti” according to what it truly was – hateful rhetoric that did not belong in our residential communities. As more and more of these posters began to appear, we highlighted for the community how frequently the acts of hate were surfacing. This is important to do – to name hate even when it interrupts our protective narrative that it can’t possibly happen here.

On the evening of Saturday, November 25^th, hate profoundly disrupted our neighborhood. Three visiting Palestinian college students gathered in our community from their respective campuses in order to celebrate Thanksgiving together. Though the investigation is ongoing, reports indicate that they had been speaking Arabic and, in response, a yet-to-be identified person shot them. This happened in our immediate community – on the streets I walk and amidst the houses I visit with the intent of getting to know those of you I am tasked with representing in Montpelier. Three visitors to our neighborhood were shot within shouting distance of the gathering spot for the Ward 1 Neighborhood Planning Assembly.

Hate happened here.

We must not disregard the identity of the three victims as merely coincidental within the context of the escalating rhetoric that surrounds the protests of the current war between Israel and Hamas – the war that is now so clearly destroying Gaza and the homes and lives of so many Palestinians. I can walk through campus on any given day and hear students talking to one another in their native languages. I frequently pass students who are on the phone talking to what I assume is a parent or loved one in the country they call home while they spend a few years at our institution and live in our neighborhood. Yet, in this instance, the hate fomented by the blame and scapegoating of the war has selectively and disproportionately harmed Palestinian American Arab students who were seemingly only speaking their language while visiting and walking in our community.

I will never know how it feels to identify from a community that has such a history of trauma from consistent periods of war and systematic genocide. I can only listen to and believe the pain and fear told in the stories of my Jewish friends as we witnessed the continuation of this cycle on October 7^th when Hamas attacked and killed so many innocent Israelis. Similarly, I will likely never know how it feels to have my home leveled by a calculated and deliberate response described as a permissible defense. I will likely never know what it is like to lose my family and other loved ones while watching my neighborhood turned to rubble. I can only listen to and believe the pain and fear told in the stories of countless Palestinians who plead with us to do whatever we can to end this cycle of never ending war. As the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. asked, somebody must have the moral courage to end this cycle of violence.

What I can and must understand, however, is how the global violence is so obviously and directly impacting my local community. And I can certainly recognize and name how the resulting and accompanying hateful rhetoric has arrived home with the acts of November 25^th in which three Palestinian students were shot. And we must act locally in ways that clearly identify this hate as precisely that – hate. We must act deliberately and with clarity to interrupt the rhetoric that precedes and fuels such acts as unwelcome and prohibited within our community.

Peace is a decision. Peace is the process, not the destination. Peace won’t suddenly show up once we have finally outlasted those that seek to perpetuate hate and intolerance. Peace arrives when we choose to act peacefully. And that decision is free. It’s war that is both costly and profitable – profit that is funded by keeping us committed to trading hate with one another. I can and I do choose to call on our collective moral courage to end this cycle of violence by opting for peace in this moment.

I call on those investigating this crime to conduct that investigation as the hate crime it so clearly appears to be.