Troy Headrick

About Troy Headrick

Posts by Troy Headrick:

/ /

Update on the Just Cause Eviction Charter Change

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

/ /

Clearing the Air on Construction of a New Correctional Facility for Justice Involved Women

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.

/ /

State Auditor’s Report on the MOU Between the City of Burlington and UVM

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,5 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

/ /

My Signature on the Legislative Letter Calling for a Ceasefire

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

/ /

Open Letter of Concern Regarding the Recent MOU Between UVM and the City of Burlington

December 19, 2023

To the Burlington City Councilors and Mayor Weinberger,

Thank you for the due diligence you are applying to your evaluation of the recently publicized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the University of Vermont and the City of Burlington detailing UVM’s plan to construct additional housing in its stated commitment to positively impacting Burlington’s crisis regarding the availability of sufficient affordable housing. I write today to express my concerns that the MOU leaves out critical consideration of factors that are especially pertinent to that crisis.

Let me begin by stating that I am not, in any way, opposed to new housing for UVM students. Nor am I opposed to the consideration of an increased enrollment plan for the university. I could talk in detail about how I feel the East Avenue corridor, the Colchester Avenue corridor, and the Centennial Stadium area are currently underutilized as a potentially vibrant arena for an improved campus district. I say this as a long time resident of Bilodeau Court situated centrally in the midst of those areas. Additionally, I began my position as a staff member with the Division of Student Affairs at UVM in 1996. I have interacted directly with UVM students on a daily basis for my entire professional career. I chose and have honed my profession precisely to interact with the college student demographic. I deliberately choose to live within walking distance to my job and under the shadow of the university. I would be perfectly fine if that shadow increased in size and my neighborhood evolved to include more college students. I am grateful for what UVM offers to our community and how it has served me and my family. My daughters are both graduates of the institution, one with a bachelor’s degree as well as a graduate degree. It is from this gratitude and love for the institution that I remain so vocally critical of the current administration’s disregard for the impact they are having on its staff members, its faculty, its students, and the neighboring community.

That being said, the housing crisis and, specifically, UVM’s contribution to the crisis remains the number one issue presented to me by the residents of the district I serve as State Representative. This issue is presented to me by long term residents of the community as well as current students (both on-campus and off-campus residents). We have a clear obligation to hold UVM accountable to those concerns as they request any zoning exemptions for new housing within the context of any long term enrollment growth. New zoning exemptions to accommodate an increase in campus housing must be accompanied by a clearly articulated long-term enrollment plan from the university administration.

I’ll summarize my critique of the MOU with four main points (focussing only on undergraduate enrollment).

  1. An overall skepticism and lack of trust in the university administration based on the recent track record for enrollment expansion beyond campus housing capacity and in disregard for how continued enrollment is negatively impacting the quality of life for so many neighboring residents.
  2. A concern for the continued impact increased enrollment will have on the surrounding rental market when UVM does not offer a clearly stated commitment to housing upperclass students, even with a stated intention to build apartment style residences. Simultaneously, the current MOU does not commit in any measurable way, to address the current overcrowding of on-campus first and second year students.
  3. A continuation of the current trend to move away from the mission of serving Vermont students as the flagship state land grant institution.
  4. A continued and consistent increase in undergraduate enrollment is impacting the capacity of the faculty and staff who serve those students.

Overall Skepticism
UVM has a terrible track record of keeping enrollment within the available housing capacity for on-campus students. The two most recent construction projects for on-campus housing validate this concern and skepticism.

Opening of the University Heights

  • When the University Heights on-campus residence halls opened in the 2006 fall semester, undergraduate enrollment was reported at 9,040 students.
  • Five years later, in the 2011 fall semester, undergraduate enrollment was reported at 10,459 students.
  • This represents an increase of 1,419 students seeking off-campus housing following their first two years of the on-campus housing requirement. If these students moved off campus in living groups of four students, the increase over those five years would have required a need for 355 dwelling units of at least two bedrooms each.

Opening of the Central Campus Residence Hall

  • Please note that the Central Campus Residence Hall replaced three previously existing residence halls (Chittenden, Buckham, and Wills halls – AKA “the shoeboxes”)
  • When CCRH on-campus residence halls opened in the 2017 fall semester, undergraduate enrollment was reported at 10,513 students.
  • Five years later, in the 2022 fall semester undergraduate enrollment was reported at 11,326 students.
  • This represents an increase of 813 students seeking off-campus housing following their first two years of the on-campus housing requirement. If these students moved off campus in living groups of four students, the increase over those five years would have required a need for 203 dwelling units of at least two bedrooms each.

Increase in enrollment since the MOU discussion began in 2022

  • Since debate began on the zoning exemptions requested by UVM in 2022, when UVM publicly stated that “enrollment is where we want it”, undergraduate enrollment has increased to a reported 11,614 students for the 2023 fall semester.
  • This represents an increase of 288 students in the span of one year. If these students move off campus in living groups of four students, they will need an additional 72 dwelling units to become available when they sign leases as early as September, 2024.

UVM is presenting its growth in disingenuous ways when viewed in the context of on-campus and off-campus housing. We continually hear that they hope to keep undergraduate enrollment at or about 3,000 students per incoming cohort. It is critical to realize that this is above the current enrollment of 11,614 students by 386 students (requiring an additional 97 dwelling units needed for off-campus housing).

UVM has consistently demonstrated nothing other than the pattern of requesting permission to build new housing, expanding enrollment beyond the capacity of that housing within five years of opening, and then depositing the increase in students to the off-campus housing market. Given that the currently proposed MOU expires only five years from now, it is imperative that we consider its approval within the context of this trend.

The MOU offers no stated commitment to house upperclass students.


Source for enrollment calculations:
Enrollment | UVM Office of Institutional Research and Assessment | The University of Vermont

Current Overcrowding of On-Campus Students
In addition to the concerns explained above for how the continued increase in undergraduate enrollment will also continue to stress an already unsustainable rental vacancy rate, we must require UVM to commit to improving the over-crowded conditions for students living on campus. 

UVM has been accommodating the persistent on-campus student increase by housing more and more students within “forced triples”, a practice by which the university houses three students in a space that has historically been designed to accommodate two students.

The UVM Department of Residential Life utilized 433 triple rooms for 1,299 students during the Fall 2021 semester.
Source: UVM predicts uptick in dorm triples – The Vermont Cynic

The Department predicts that approximately 30% of its students can expect to be housed in triples.
Source: Triple Rooms | Residential Life | The University of Vermont 

It is noteworthy that these accommodations result in habitable floor area per student that is below the city’s zoning requirements. The City of Burlington code requirements necessitate that “Every dwelling unit shall contain a minimum habitable floor area of not less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet for the first occupant, and one hundred (100) square feet for each additional occupant, up to a limit of three (3) and at least fifty (50) square feet for each additional occupant after four (4).”
Source: Article III. Minimum Standards, Division 4. Space and Occupancy

The average square footage of a double room at UVM is approximately 186 square feet (93 square feet per resident). When housing three students in what has historically been termed a double room, the square footage per resident drops to an alarming 62 square feet in an average sized room.
Source: Halls | Residential Life | The University of Vermont

The MOU offers no stated commitment to alleviating the current overcrowded conditions for first and second year students living on-campus (forced triples).

Continued Departure from the Mission of a Land Grant Institution
As the flagship land grant institution for the state of Vermont, UVM has an obligation to provide a quality public education to the residents of Vermont. We simply must ask how increased enrollment within the context of a small population state impacts that obligation. It is no secret that a continued increase in enrollment will alleviate the funding gap resulting from sparse support from state allocations. While I remain available for continued discussion on how to best impact that conversation at the state level, I am not convinced that current trends serve the mission of a land grant institution.

Out of state students provide more tuition revenue to a university that is continually struggling to respond to the increased commodification of higher education in a state that underfunds its public institutions of higher education. While this MOU should not necessarily address the ways in which we are becoming increasingly out of balance in our service to Vermont students, it is worth noting the ways in which the current enrollment scheme is shaping the optics of the land grant mission.

The class of 2026 was composed of only 16% of Vermonters. The class of 2027 did not significantly improve and is composed of only 18% of Vermonters. This worsens the current trend by which UVM is made up, proportionately, of fewer and fewer Vermont students.

 

Impact of Continued Enrollment on the Service Capacity of Faculty and Staff
I’ve described the impact of increased enrollment on the neighborhoods within the district I represent as a State Representative. As a long time staff member currently employed by the Center for Student Conduct, I can also discuss the very specific ways that current overcrowding within on-campus housing is impacting UVM students. Beyond the general complaints of a decrease in personal space and an inability to find areas for even momentary seclusion, I also hear on a very regular basis about how an unhealthy reliance on cannabis and alcohol to cope with the resulting stress culminates in an intersection with the conduct process. These frustrations are frequently echoed in conversations I have with parents who also recognize the added stress on their students that derive from the detrimental conditions that associate with living in forced triples. We’re also creating an equity issue when families with the means to do so simply purchase a more reasonable living situation despite the added cost.
Source: Costs and Fees | Residential Life | The University of Vermont

I urge you to also seek testimony from the UVM Faculty Union (United Academics) as well as the UVM Staff Union (UVM Staff United) who will provide additional evidence for how the increased enrollment trend is impacting classroom dynamics and various student services we are asked to provide.

In closing, I urge you to consider requesting the addition of at least three critical statements to be included in any approved MOU.

  • New zoning exemptions to accommodate an increase in campus housing must be accompanied by a clearly articulated long-term enrollment plan from the university administration.
  • The MOU must offer a stated commitment to house upperclass students.
  • The MOU must offer a stated commitment to alleviating the current overcrowded conditions for first and second year students living on-campus (forced triples).

I disagree with a statement provided by Richard Cate, the UVM Vice President for Finance and Administration, during last night’s discussion. With his statement, he indicated that he felt the MOU offered indicates a final offer as dictated by the Board of Trustees. I will remind all involved with this discussion that UVM is, ultimately, a charter of the General Assembly. I remain committed to keeping this conversation active at the state level to whatever degree I am able and that feels supportive of the City of Burlington’s efforts.

Respectfully,



Troy Headrick
State Representative for the Chittenden 15 House District
Ward 1 Resident

/ /

(Some of) my 2024 Legislative Priorities

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.

/ /

Vermont Housing Trends

The General Assembly received a briefing this past Friday about the current trends in housing across Vermont. As our community here in Burlington is about to select new leadership, it is critical that we ask questions from a well informed perspective. Information here was provided by The Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA), Capstone Community Action, and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board.

The full presentation is available at the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office website within their list of recent briefings. I’ll post a few slides here along with some brief comments.

So many of the concerns I hear Burlingtonians discuss can be sourced to our housing crisis. The increased visibility of our fellow Vermonters who are suffering from opioid use disorder, the inability of those we love to stay in Vermont due to low availability and increasingly high costs of rent and mortgages, and the impact on our workforce when employers are unable to recruit or retain workers due to the many hurdles involved with finding and affording housing — all of these can be directly sourced to this crisis. It becomes common practice to focus on one or two factors as we then look to leadership to create policy as the fix. I’m guilty of this myself as I continue to scrutinize UVM, one of our biggest employers and a significant factor impacting housing in the Chittenden 15 district, and their stated unwillingness to share any sort of enrollment plan while seeking exemptions to build new housing. I’ll continue to apply that scrutiny and will end this post with a graph that identifies the continued increase in enrollment for undergraduate students.

It is important, though, to consider all of the factors as we select leadership that will guide policy in the coming years — policy that will hopefully return Burlington as a city in which working families can afford to live and spread roots. I don’t pretend to have solutions to each of these factors. I do know that collective and collaborative problem solving will be required. Anyone willing to join in that collaboration will need the data presented here.

It’s no surprise to anyone that the rate of change in housing supply continues to decrease at alarming rates.

Simultaneously, the cost of building new affordable housing continues to escalate.

When you factor in the recent net migration to Vermont along with the predicted trends for climate migration and influx of those who will seek a more accepting political climate from areas of the country that are enacting hateful policy, we are likely to have more and more people searching for affordable housing that is currently not available.

These factors, combined with the increasing cost of borrowing money to build or buy a home leaves more and more current renters stuck in the cycle of spending more on increasing rent while saving progressively less for houses that stay out of reach. Currently, fewer than 5,000 Vermont renters could afford to by a median priced home. This is down from nearly 25,000 just two years ago.

These are all factors largely outside of our control. We can’t create policy that lowers the cost of construction or forbids those that wish to migrate to Vermont and to Burlington for any variety of reasons. We can however consider a few factors that are impacting the amount of housing available for purchase or rent. We can also hold employers accountable for bringing Vermont wages out of compression and in line with what comparable salaries are across the country.

The amount of short term rentals have most certainly increased across the state. Burlington recently passed an ordinance that seeks to end the ability for landlords to utilize many of their properties as short term rentals. It will be critical that we enforce this ordinance and I will work to create legislation that replicates Burlington’s ordinance into state wide policy.

We can encourage our employers to respond to the need for more competitive wages here in Burlington and across the state. Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living and certainly not with the cost of home ownership.

As we watch to see what happens with the Vermont State College system, we must support our UVM workers locally as they find increasing leverage through the unions that are developing across the entire campus workforce. In my estimation, morale at UVM is at an all time low. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly every employee has overwhelming voted to form a union for collective bargaining. I belong to UVM Staff United and am pleased that we raised the minimum wage for all workers included within our bargaining unit to a minimum of $20 per hour. The UVM administration is currently stalling continued negotiations that would evaluate our outdated system for job classification and compensation. Our initial contract tabled those decisions until this past summer of 2023 and the response from UVM to resuming those negotiations has been nothing but concerning. Recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce will require all employers to reconcile decades of compressed wages.

Finally, we must continue to pressure UVM to house more of its students and to remain transparent about its enrollment plan that has a disproportionate impact on the city wards and legislative districts immediately adjacent to campus. Recent history shows the clear trend of UVM expanding enrollment to beyond capacity within 5 years of building any new housing. Within this past year, UVM refused to provide any public statement on their enrollment plans when seeking a zoning exemption to build even more housing. With that refusal they assured the City Council that “enrollment is where we want it”. Since that statement, UVM again increased its undergraduate enrollment by 288 students. If those students move off campus in group of fours, they will require an additional 72 housing units and will be looking to sign those leases as early as September, 2024. Our neighborhoods simply cannot currently sustain this continued growth.

UVM is an obvious partner in our immediate neighborhoods as we navigate the factors listed above. Any new campus housing must commit to eliminating the need to house students in “forced triples” while providing attractive options to upperclass students for staying within the campus district after their initial two years. We must not allow any new housing to be approved until UVM commits to managing its enrollment plan and meaningfully contribute solutions to our city’s housing crisis.

That being said, UVM is one part of this puzzle. Returning Burlington to a vibrant and safe city with affordable housing for anyone who seeks it will absolutely require us all to remain open and imaginative to how we will accommodate the continued migration of people wanting to join our community. We are currently witnessing the increasingly frequent impact of decades of neglect to a “housing first” commitment. The increase in burglaries, along with the obvious and open impact of the substance use disorder escalation, are such examples. When we deny the basic need of shelter, it should not surprise us to find the resulting impact becoming more and more visible.

Our city will change. We must envision housing that becomes more dense and remain open to building up. Housing has to trump parking and driving. We can do this by building a more walkable and bike-able city center that houses working families closer to an improved public transportation infrastructure. We have a simple choice between building more housing in our neighborhoods or witnessing the continued impact of more and more of our Vermont neighbors without homes finding ways to survive nonetheless in those same neighborhoods. In short, it becomes critical to shift our prevailing paradigm of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) to Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY).

As you consider the factors outlined within this post, please do not hesitate to contact me for continued discussion. As I’ve already stated, the solutions to these factors that will remain outside of our control will most certainly require collaborative head scratching and plenty of compromise. Know that I am committed to those conversations.

/ /

My Statement on the November 25th Shooting of Three Palestinian Students

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 25th, 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 7th 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 25th 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.

/ /

Continued Concerns about the VTANG Lease Extension

I’ve already posted my full comments on why I personally opposed extending the VTANG lease without first considering the continued housing of the F35 war machines. You can find that full statement on my most recent blog entry.

I’m posting today with the concerns that have persisted for me since the decision resulting from Monday’s City Council meeting. Those concerns now reside with the approach itself that was used to strong-arm the new policy that extends the lease until 2073.  I remain appalled by how 8 people, under the guidance and direction of our exiting Mayor, are able to impact this community for so long without input from impacted stakeholders. This impact will persist well beyond our lifetimes and, for many of us, beyond our children’s lifetimes. As we ponder the climate crisis that was handed to us by policy makers that have preceded us, we have to honestly acknowledge that we are making the very same mistake for future generations with this policy.

I’ve spent nearly my entire professional career as part of the process that adjudicates policy violations within the university environment. Since 2008 I have done this within the Center for Student Conduct at the University of Vermont. I have heard concerns from community members and spoken with countless students about their decisions that impact our neighborhoods and surrounding community, hopefully impacting positive change within each arriving cohort of new students. As part of those responsibilities I have been grateful for the evolving Code of Student Conduct and how consistently those that amend it each year involve our office as stakeholders who will ultimately be asked to interpret those policies as they intersect with student behavior.

Although I would still be fairly considered as new to the process by which policy is created at the state level, I have already witnessed the benefit of first hearing from all impacted stake holders before drafting new laws. The best example I can offer to highlight this is the process by which we are attempting to hear fully from impacted professionals and people with lived experiences within our prison system as we attempt to solve the problem currently presented by the inhumane conditions at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility that houses incarcerated women.

I can speak for a very long time about why I truly embrace my identity as a Progressive Democrat — a fusion P/D candidate.  The Democratic party allowed me to find a home amongst other like-minded individuals in the 1980s as I left my very conservative home to attend college. I am nothing but saddened with how party politics seem to be in the way of fair minded political conversations that guide the process of developing responsive policy in Burlington. And I regret contributing to those dynamics with this statement. Nonetheless, I feel I have to highlight the profound disappointment that has impacted me after watching the decision to extend the lease that was so clearly predetermined by the Democrats that control our City Council.

The decision to extend the lease was made in closed-door executive session, hidden from any public oversight. Our Mayor announced the lease extension just 11 days prior to the Council meeting that would formalize the decision. I watched how the Council disregarded requests to pause the decision until we could engage in a more robust debate on this only moment of leverage that might impact conditions for VTANG before extending the lease until 2073. All requests to pause the discussion were denied by 8 people, thereby closing the door to stakeholder input. This includes the deliberate exclusion of input from our neighboring communities of South Burlington and Winooski that are also impacted by this decision. It is correct to point out that the community of Winooski, the city that falls in the most direct line of impact from the F35 flight path, is our most diverse community in the state of Vermont with the highest concentration of Black and Brown residents. This is precisely what environmental racism looks like.

A commitment to Restorative Justice includes the practice of a core concept called Fair Process. This is a proactive commitment to remaining deliberate about hearing from potentially impacted individuals and communities before creating policies that may potentially cause harm.  Not only did this not occur at Monday’s meeting, all indications suggest that any sort of fair process was strategically disregarded by 8 individuals acting in concert with one another.

I hope we can all keep this profound disappointment in mind as we consider the future leadership of this community.

/ /

My Statement to the City Council Decision on Extending the Lease for the VTANG

My name is Troy Headrick and I’m a pacifist.

I knew I was a pacifist as early as the 4th grade when my best friend punched me in the face and broke my tooth. I knew then that I didn’t like the feelings associated with how violent such a good friend had become.

When you commit to pacifism so early, and you’re surrounded by people who don’t necessarily understand or subscribe to that commitment, you become forced to find your mentors and your heroes from a broader sphere. I found and chose the non-violent messages of John Lennon and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. I’ll quote the latter here:

“Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe.”

We have since been reminded by so many that Peace is not a destination. It’s not something you find. Peace is the journey itself. Peace is a choice. When we commit to peace, our world and our journeys become peaceful.

Making the decision to house war machines is also a choice and it will never lead to peace. I will already be 81 years old when the current lease expires. I’ll likely be dead when the extended lease expires. My daughters will be 78 and 80 when the extended lease would expire in 2073. How dare we act with such hubris right now that would lock this community into a lease until 2073. How dare we.

I’ve heard the sound of the F35s described as the sound of freedom. This is ridiculous gaslighting propaganda. The disruptive sound we hear so frequently is, quite literally, the sound of war. I’ve heard the mantra repeatedly that freedom is not free. This makes for a cute bumper sticker but it’s also absolutely wrong. Freedom and peace are most certainly free. It costs me absolutely nothing to commit to peace.

It’s war that is both costly and profitable.

We have been told and we’ll be told again about the importance of the federal dollars that accompany this lease extension.

I don’t care.

We all have plenty of convictions that are not for sale at any price. My commitment to peace is not for sale at any price. My hope is that we can come together as a community and make the brave decision that our collective commitment to a peaceful existence is not for sale at any price. These disruptive machines of war do not belong this close to our communities. We certainly should not be the ones who make the decision to keep them here until 2073.

1 2 3