2026 Town Meeting Week Report

March 1, 2026

It remains a genuine privilege to serve and represent the residents of the Chittenden 15 district. I do not take the trust you place in me lightly. Each session is a reminder that this work is not abstract. It carries real consequences for our neighbors, our schools, and our shared community.

I continue to serve on the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions and, for this session, also continue as Ranking Member. I am grateful for a strong and constructive working relationship with my Chair and for the trust she places in me as I advance efforts toward meaningful corrections reform. In addition to overseeing corrections policy, our committee is responsible for constructing the State’s capital budget. We passed the two-year capital bill during the 2025 session and, during the first eight weeks of this session, have been reviewing and evaluating adjustments proposed by the Governor. That work requires careful attention to infrastructure needs across Vermont and long-term fiscal responsibility.

I fully anticipate that some of the legislative priorities I have advanced this biennium will remain unfinished. Where necessary, I am pivoting strategically to ensure that these issues stay active and well-positioned for consideration in the next biennium. If reelected, I intend to continue advancing these priorities while remaining responsive and ready to act on the needs presented by our district.

As an Independent legislator, I will not formally become a candidate for reelection until after the primary elections conclude. I look forward to engaging in the general election process at that time. I have already been approached by others who are considering a run for this seat, and I welcome the depth of interest. Chittenden 15 is fortunate to have residents willing to serve with integrity and sincerity. I am confident that our district is uniquely positioned to model a contested field grounded in dignity, positive campaigning, and substantive discussion. I look forward to robust conversations rooted in respect and civility. You all deserve choices. Democracy is served best when we have options for our representation.

What follows is an update on three central areas of focus this session: education reform and school finance, corrections policy and reentry reform, and legislative oversight to ensure meaningful access to legal counsel for individuals detained within Vermont’s correctional facilities.

Education

Since the passage of Act 73 last year, it has been clear that education redistricting and school finance would dominate much of the 2026 session. That has proven accurate. Committees continue their work and final proposals are still taking shape.

My guiding principles are straightforward. Public dollars should support public schools. Educational opportunity should not depend on a town’s property wealth. And any reform must reduce volatility and long-term pressure on primary homeowners while protecting the quality of education our students receive.

As legislation emerges, I will stay closely connected to those doing the hardest and most grounded work locally. That includes our school board members, our Superintendent, and Senator Larocque Gulick, who co-chaired the redistricting task force. I recently attended a joint briefing by the House Committees on Education and Ways & Means to remain informed as proposals develop. The Chair of the Education Committee has introduced a draft district map, and the Senate will be presenting its own. By the Chair’s own acknowledgment, the current draft contains provisions that each individual committee member would consider difficult to accept. That is often what early compromise looks like. I am encouraged, however, by continued movement away from a system that allows public education funding to flow into private and independent school budgets.

On finance, I am equally encouraged that the Committee on Ways & Means is seriously examining alternatives to a system that relies so heavily on property taxes and better accounts for long-deferred school infrastructure needs. If we are honest about affordability, we must confront structural imbalance. Options under discussion include creating additional income tax brackets for households earning more than $500,000 and $1 million, and reassessing how we tax second homes relative to primary residences. Current estimates suggest those approaches could generate as much as $150 million annually. Whether any particular proposal advances remains to be seen, but the broader principle is fairness. Primary homeowners should not shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden while high-wealth households and non-resident property owners are shielded from contributing proportionally.

I also want to be transparent about my position on H.842, a bill that has been presented as a practical mechanism to control healthcare costs within education budgets. Healthcare inflation is undeniably a major driver of school spending and property tax pressure. However, H.842 restructures the Commission on Public School Employee Health Benefits in a way that shifts decision-making authority toward the Governor’s administration and away from collective bargaining representatives. In practical terms, it would allow greater executive influence over benefit design and cost containment, reducing the leverage of educators and school staff at the bargaining table.

In my view, capping benefit value or limiting worker leverage does not solve healthcare inflation. It shifts costs onto educators and staff. If we are serious about affordability, we need structural healthcare reform that addresses pricing, access, and systemic cost drivers. Rebalancing power away from frontline public employees will not produce sustainable savings, and it risks weakening the very workforce our public schools depend upon.

I will continue to evaluate final proposals as they take shape, but these principles will guide my vote.

An additional piece of legislation was positioned to have an unintended impact on our teachers. When H.205, a bill prohibiting non-compete agreements, arrived for consideration by the entire body, I introduced an amendment to address the exclusion of teachers from the bill’s protections. Overall, I wholeheartedly support the removal of non-compete agreements from our workforce. While current statute penalizes teachers who leave mid-year without just cause, in practice contract renewal timelines and administrative interpretations have created constraints that function like a de facto non-compete for the following school year. My amendment sought to clarify that teachers retain the right to interview for, be offered, and accept employment for the next school year while still honoring their obligation to complete the current contract term. Given strong feedback from education stakeholders, the committee agreed to delay further action on the bill until after the break so that the teachers union, superintendents, principals, and school boards can continue working toward compromise language. If we are committed to strengthening worker mobility through this legislation, that commitment should apply consistently to all workers.

Corrections Reform

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, I have focused this session on practical steps to improve conditions for incarcerated Vermonters. That work is urgent as we remain at an impasse on constructing a new facility that would provide safer living conditions and better access to programming, particularly for women. Advocates consistently note how difficult meaningful programming is within our current infrastructure.

I am also concerned about Vermont’s growing reliance on the for-profit prison industry to manage overcrowding, provide healthcare, and facilitate communication between incarcerated individuals and their families. When essential services are outsourced to private vendors, shareholder return competes with rehabilitation and accountability.

While long-term infrastructure solutions remain unresolved, I introduced legislation to remove financial and administrative barriers to successful reentry.

First, H.549 addresses access to state-issued identification upon release. Vermont previously established eligibility for non-driver IDs for individuals serving sentences of six months or longer. Testimony from the Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed that expanding eligibility to any ID for which an individual qualifies, including driver’s licenses and Real IDs, would not materially increase costs. We extended eligibility to detainees held six months or longer who may not yet have been sentenced, recognizing inequities created by court backlogs. Identification upon release is foundational. It enables access to housing, employment, prescriptions, and care continuity. The language has been incorporated into the miscellaneous DMV bill and passed unanimously out of committee.

I also introduced H.635 to eliminate Department of Corrections supervisory fees. For decades, individuals on probation or parole paid monthly fees whose collection costs exceeded the revenue generated. In practice, the policy functioned as a punitive measure on those least able to afford it and created obstacles to housing, employment, and compliance. The bill passed unanimously in committee and in Ways & Means. I expect favorable action from the full House shortly after break.

H.294 addresses commissary pricing, telecommunications costs, and compensation for incarcerated labor. This proposal has generated significant debate because it challenges long-standing correctional practices.

Currently, incarcerated Vermonters earn an average of about 65 cents per hour for work supporting facility operations, with some earning as little as 25 cents. In some cases, this labor also supports other state functions, including license plate production. At the same time, incarcerated individuals and their families pay high rates for telecommunications and commissary items.

Several states have adopted no-cost or publicly structured telecommunications models based on evidence that consistent family contact improves safety, strengthens ties, and reduces recidivism. After examining fiscal realities, a full transition this year was not achievable. Rather than stall the issue, I amended H.294 to require a structured evaluation. The Department of Corrections would analyze nonprofit and public utility models, conduct cost modeling, and develop an implementation framework for legislative consideration.

This approach does not mandate immediate overhaul. It requires data and accountability. If we are serious about rehabilitation, we must understand the costs and benefits of our vendor-based model compared to alternatives.

Finally, I am introducing a short-form bill to classify incarcerated labor providers as temporary state employees for workplace protections and compensation. The goal is to initiate a conversation about fairness, dignity, and alignment with Vermont’s labor standards. Combined with the evaluation framework in H.294, this positions the Legislature for more substantive reforms next year.

My focus remains consistent. We must reduce barriers to successful reentry, strengthen accountability, and ensure that our correctional policies reflect Vermont’s commitment to rehabilitation rather than extraction.

Access to Legal Counsel for ICE Detainees

Over the past several weeks, the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions has been working through serious concerns raised by the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project (VAAP), in partnership with the ACLU of Vermont and the Vermont Human Rights Commission. VAAP provides pro bono representation to individuals held in Vermont correctional facilities pursuant to ICE detainers. Their testimony outlined repeated administrative and procedural barriers interfering with meaningful access to legal counsel.

The concerns were specific and credible. Legal appointments were being canceled due to space constraints. Translation services were inconsistent or unavailable at critical moments. Access to electronic devices for interpretation was limited. A previously functional practice, in which vetted VAAP attorneys were permitted to use their own secure devices to facilitate translation and communication, had been discontinued under new departmental leadership. There were also inconsistencies between facilities, particularly between Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility and Northwest State Correctional Facility, leading to uneven access depending on where detainees were housed.

We invited the Department of Corrections to respond. The Department indicated that it had heard the concerns and intended to make operational adjustments. Two weeks later, follow-up testimony suggested that improvements had not occurred in a meaningful way.

At that point, the Chair, Vice Chair, and I worked together to shift from informal mediation toward a structured solution. We developed a legislative letter of intent directing the Department to enter into a formal Memorandum of Understanding with VAAP under the oversight of the Human Rights Commission. The goal is straightforward. DOC must guarantee consistent, timely access to legal counsel across facilities, formalize scheduling and space practices that have worked in the past, resolve translation and technology barriers, and ensure full cooperation with legal service providers.

The proposed agreement includes clear deadlines, weekly reporting to the committee, and a comprehensive evaluation period to determine whether the solution is working or whether further legislative action is required.

We brought this framework to the full committee with the expectation that implementation will follow promptly. Access to legal counsel is foundational. Our role as legislators is to ensure that state agencies meet that obligation consistently and without obstruction. The delivery of these expectations met a hurdle with the Governor’s interpretation of our oversight. He indicated that they overstep legislative authority. I disagree and will work with Legislative Counsel over the break to determine next steps.

This work is not theoretical. It is realistic to anticipate that Vermont, and Burlington in particular, could become a targeted location for expanded federal immigration enforcement. If Vermont continues to house ICE detainees within our Department of Corrections, we must be prepared to meet the legal and constitutional obligations that come with that decision. Due process and unhampered access to legal services will be essential.

Human rights advocates have testified that, under the current federal landscape, detaining asylum seekers within Vermont’s DOC facilities can be advantageous compared to transfer to more remote federal detention centers. Housing individuals here keeps cases within a more accessible federal court process and allows Vermont-based legal advocates to develop case law that may shape precedent during a volatile national period. That opportunity exists only if legal access functions effectively and without obstruction.

Using this MOU to institutionalize legal access standards is therefore critical. If ICE detention in Vermont expands beyond asylum seekers to include Vermont residents, the systems we establish now will determine whether we uphold due process in practice, not just in principle.

Thank You

Thank you again for the opportunity to serve the Chittenden 15 district. I remain deeply aware that this role exists because of the trust you place in me. Whether the issue is education funding, corrections reform, capital investments, or protecting due process, my responsibility is to approach each decision with care, integrity, and a clear understanding of how it affects the people I represent.

I welcome your outreach at any time. If you have questions, concerns, disagreements, or ideas, I want to hear from you. I am always available for phone conversations, email exchanges, or in-person meetings. Direct engagement with constituents strengthens my work and sharpens my judgment.

I also extend an open invitation to visit the State House, particularly to those who have never observed the legislative process firsthand. It truly is the People’s House. Watching committee work, floor debate, and public testimony offers a fuller understanding of how policy is shaped and how voices from across Vermont influence that process. If you decide to make the trip to Montpelier, please let me know. I would be honored to greet you in person and help you navigate the building.

Thank you for your continued engagement, your candor, and your commitment to our community.

Troy