After a House panel approved a discrimination prevention policy Monday, it immediately moved into a closed-door meeting to discuss an “issue that has come up.”
The House Discrimination Prevention Panel met Monday morning to sign off on a policy it’s been working on since the 2019-20 biennium.
After voting 4-0-1 in favor of the Vermont House of Representatives’ discrimination prevention policy for 2021-22, the panel approved a motion to enter executive session to consider a question of discrimination in the lower chamber.
“I move to go into executive session to discuss an issue that’s come up,” Rep. Kelly Pajala, I-Londonderry, said Monday during the panel meeting.
The motion was seconded and the panel then stopped streaming on YouTube, as it moved behind virtual closed doors.
A committee can enter an executive session — which takes the panel out of the public eye — when sensitive information is presented.
The House Discrimination Prevention Panel is governed by strict confidentiality rules around any case that involves Vermont House members and legislative staff.
Rep. Mari Cordes, D-Lincoln, who chairs the discrimination prevention panel, told VTDigger Monday that she could not talk publicly about what happened in the closed-door meeting, but could “point to the process.”
“When we as panel members become aware of a possible issue — whether we were witness to it, or a member talks to us — then that’s one way the process gets started,” she said.
Cordes would not address on Monday whether the issue or issues in question had occurred during the 2021 legislative session or in a prior year.
“A complainant could come forward even if it was something that happened two or three years ago — especially if that complainant had heard about the same issue or a pattern with the same individual that occurred in another year,” Cordes said.
Under the newly adopted policy, discrimination is described as “the unfair or unequal treatment of an individual” based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, place of birth, age, crime victim status, or physical or mental condition.”
It also lists examples of workplace harassment. These include offensive jokes, physical assaults or threats, derogatory or provocative remarks and insulting or putting down an individual.
Before adopting the policy, the panel decided to expand which employees would be covered by the guidelines, ensuring it encompassed the conduct of staff in the Office of Legislative Counsel, the Joint Fiscal Office, the Office of Legislative Information Technology, the Office of Legislative Operations, and the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.
Since January, a number of lawmakers have been captured on YouTube making questionable statements.
In the upper chamber, Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, drew fire on social media for using a racist trope to explain opposition to legislation banning the use of LGBTQ “panic” defenses in court.
When that same bill, H.128, was in the House, Rep. Paul Martin, R-Franklin, privately admonished members of the Republican caucus who opposed the legislation.
Three members of the GOP had voted against the proposal when it was up for preliminary approval, and Martin — a first-term lawmaker — emailed his Republican colleagues to let them know he was disturbed by the outcome.
“I just wanted it to be known that I am absolutely disgusted with the nay votes on H.128,” Martin wrote in the email. “As a member of the LGBT community, I feel you voted in favor of someone using the excuse of me being gay to kill me.”
Separately, Rep. Woodman Page, R-Newport, used the wrong pronouns when he referred to Rep. Taylor Small, P/D-Winooski, the first openly transgender person to serve in the Vermont Legislature, during a House floor session.
And another House Republican, Rep. Arthur Peterson of Clarendon, has repeatedly questioned this session whether systemic racism exists.
It’s unknown whether details of the case discussed Monday by the House Discrimination Prevention Panel will be made public, but Cordes said it is possible.
“There may be a time later on where it would be important to make it public, but otherwise we maintain strict confidentiality about these issues,” Cordes said.
