Gov. Phil Scott has allowed a bill to become law without his signature that, among other measures, allows members of the Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission to hold deliberations outside of the requirements of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
Scott said he refused to sign the bill, H.649, because of that provision. It allows a majority or more of the commissioners to hold private discussions about testimony they’ve received or when debating potential actions. Any official decisions by the commissioners, though, must be made in a public setting, according to the legislation.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is tasked with studying how racism, discrimination and eugenics have affected Vermont’s laws and suggesting ways that state government could repair those harms. Its work is focused on impacts to Indigenous, French-Canadian and Black people; people of color; and people who have disabilities.
“I understand the politics are sensitive, but knowing what the government is doing and how it’s doing it is fundamental to a healthy, functioning democracy regardless of the politics,” Scott said in a letter Monday outlining his decision to the Vermont House.
Scott’s comments come on the heels of months of debate in the Legislature over how to balance the panel’s work — which is expected to include taking testimony from people about experiencing discrimination — with its obligations as a public body.
Lawmakers have maintained in committee discussions and on the House and Senate floors that H.649’s primary purpose is to help commissioners operate more efficiently.
A public body must comply with Vermont’s Open Meeting Law any time a majority of its members, also called a quorum, gathers to discuss its business or to take action. The law generally requires these meetings be warned in advance and that the public is allowed to participate.
But since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has only three members — of which two constitute a majority — it is difficult for the panel to conduct much of its business without falling under the Open Meeting Law requirements, lawmakers and commission members have said.
Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central, defended the measure on the Senate floor while summarizing the bill to her colleagues last month.
Commissioners “would literally have had to stream sitting at the office together. We would be watching Truth and Reconciliation meetings streamed eight hours a day, five days a week,” Vyhovsky said. “And that seems an undue burden.”
Lawmakers’ work was also informed by concerns about the commissioners’ safety.
Melody Mackin, who’s one of the commissioners, said in an interview earlier this year that panel members had been subjected to at least one death threat.
In response, an earlier version of H.649 proposed granting the commission authority to close its meetings to public participation when there was a safety threat to the panel’s staff, witnesses or invitees.
The commission would still have some authority to limit in-person access to its meetings if Scott signs a different bill lawmakers passed last week: S.55. That bill would allow many public bodies, like the truth and reconciliation panel, to hold an online-only meeting if there is a “local incident” including threats to meeting participants’ safety.
Scott’s office hasn’t had a chance to review the details of S.55 yet, his spokesperson, Jason Maulucci, said in an email Tuesday afternoon.
Vyhovsky also pointed to other measures in the legislation that she said are designed to protect the public’s right to know. Among them was a requirement that the commission regularly post short summaries of its private deliberations on its website.
The new law also adds requirements to the final report that commissioners have to issue on their findings by April 2027, including “a bibliography of all sources, interviews, and materials utilized in preparing the report,” the text of the legislation reads.
Damien Leonard, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Counsel, said earlier this month that this measure stemmed, in part, from concerns raised in Senate committee testimony over the likely intersection of the commission’s work with contentious questions about the identities of many members of the four groups that have been recognized as Abenaki by the state.
“One of the things that came up was, it’s hard to judge the work if you don’t know the sources,” Leonard told the House Government Operations Committee.
H.649 also grants commissioners the authority to establish groups of people who have shared life experiences, known as “affinity groups,” that would meet on their own and could inform the panel’s work.
Meetings of these affinity groups “shall be confidential and privileged,” according to the law. Members could face civil liability for violating that seal of confidentiality.
One organization that’s voiced opposition to H.649’s Open Meeting Law changes is the Vermont Press Association, which represents a number of newspapers in the state. Lisa Loomis, the organization’s president, said in an email Tuesday that those concerns remain — adding that “Gov. Scott articulated them very well!”
“No publicly funded organization’s work is so special and unique that carve outs to the state’s Open Meeting Law need to be created,” Loomis said. “If this commission is able to seek and get legislated carve outs, which commission, body, board, or organization is next?”
