MONTPELIER — A Senate committee voted Wednesday to support the suspension of one of their own, paving the way for the full Senate to decide whether to remove Sen. Norm McAllister from office until charges of sexual assault filed against the Franklin County Republican are settled in court.
The Senate Rules Committee voted in favor of the resolution to suspend McAllister by a 3-2 margin. The full Senate is expected to take up the measure when the Legislature returns in January.
The committee debated for several hours about whether a suspension would impact McAllister’s trial, which is scheduled to begin in February. McAllister is charged with multiple felonies for allegations that he rented a trailer to a tenant in exchange for sex and repeatedly raped a woman who served as his intern at the Statehouse last year. McAllister was arrested on Statehouse grounds on the next to last day of the legislative session. The senator pleaded not guilty and after he refused, despite pleas from his colleagues, to resign from the Senate last May, he was stripped of his committee assignments.
Senators also discussed whether Franklin County constituents would be deprived of equal representation if McAllister is suspended by the full Senate. Expulsion would allow the governor to appoint a replacement for McAllister. A suspension, on the other hand, creates a limbo situation in which the Senate cannot name a new senator to represent Franklin County, and constituents could go without equal representation during the legislative session as the state senator’s trial moves forward.
“It is not in dispute that Sen. McAllister has been charged with multiple counts of felony sexual assault,” said Sen. Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden, the majority leader, who introduced the suspension resolution. “It is also not in dispute that one of those alleged victims served as his Statehouse intern.”
“That being the case,” Baruth said, “it seems to me that the Senate is compelled to act.”
McAllister, 64, attended the hearing. He reiterated his innocence and said the committee’s actions were “quite disturbing.” He said that since he was charged in May, some Senate colleagues had threatened and bullied him while many constituents had asked him to continue serving Franklin County.
In a short, emotional speech before the committee, McAllister said the charges had “sullied everything that I have ever done in my adult life.”
“I see it as, when you got somebody down on their knees, go kick ‘em in the head,” McAllister said. “And that’s the way I look at this proceeding.”
Sen. President Pro Tem John Campbell, D-Windsor, and Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, supported Baruth’s resolution. Sens. Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle, and Peg Flory, R-Rutland, voted against it.
Campbell, who is a lawyer, said he would “fight until my last breath is taken to defend one’s constitutional right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.” But in this case he said, “I have to look at this from the Senate.”
Benning initially proposed expulsion for McAllister, a permanent action that requires evidence gathering and testimony. The lengthy process could take weeks, as opposed to just a few days for suspension, but would allow the Senate to replace McAllister.
On Wednesday, Benning acknowledged he did not have the support to proceed with expulsion hearings, and said suspension was the best option available.
“I think it is incumbent upon us as senators to police ourselves,” Benning said. “And we have not only the authority to do that, but the responsibility to do that, even in the most uncomfortable of circumstances.”
Mazza and Flory voted against suspension, arguing it presumed a level of guilt and unfairly impacted the citizens of Franklin County.
If suspended, McAllister would still be paid, but could not vote or work as a legislator, according to Senate Secretary John Bloomer.
Flory has been McAllister’s most ardent defender in the Senate, and introduced a resolution Wednesday, which failed 4-1, that would have created a special committee to consider actions against legislators facing felony charges.
The proposed five-person committee would not have been able to take any action against McAllister until the conclusion of his trial, which is scheduled to begin in February.
“The presumption of innocence for anyone, is so strong — should be so strong — that I don’t think we should do it [recommend suspension],” Flory said.
Baruth defended his resolution, arguing suspension is “not intended to prejudge the case.”
“But [suspension] does say that in the tension between protecting public safety, or in this case the safety of the chamber and the integrity of the chamber, we will err on the side of protecting those entrusted to us,” Baruth added.
During the hearing, McAllister argued that suspension was no different than expulsion from the Senate chambers.
“I look at this proposal by Sen. Baruth as the same thing as expulsion,” McAllister said. “It’s different wording, it does the same thing, in that it doesn’t allow me to represent the people who elected me.”
Suspension of a sitting state senator is unprecedented in Vermont, and Baruth lifted language from a 2014 legislative suspension from California. In that case, three senators were caught up in a corruption case that included charges ranging from wire fraud to illegal gun running.
McAllister told the committee that constituents had promised to sue the state if he is suspended, and Luke Martland, chief legal counsel for the Legislature, said there might be grounds for legal action.
“It is arguable that there is a constitutional issue raised here, because those constituents will not have equal representation,” Martland said. “And it could be for a short period of time or it could be a little longer, but they are denied equal representation during that period.”
The committee ended the meeting with plans to send McAllister a copy of the suspension resolution, and an invitation to defend himself when the motion goes up for debate in January.
Senators, however, will not be allowed to interrogate McAllister if he chooses to defend himself.
McAllister exited the conference room with reporters trailing behind, with recorders outstretched and questions about how he felt about the committee’s decision.
McAllister paused for a moment.
“Maybe a little disappointed,” he said.