|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
CORRECTION: The party affiliation and committee assignment of Rep. Headrick was misidentified in an earlier edition. We regret the error. – Editor
A bill introduced into the Vermont House would prohibit “discrimination based on an individual’s criminal history in employment and the rental or sale of housing.”
H.201, sponsored by Rep. Troy Headrick (D-Burlington) and Reps. Kevin Christie (D-Hartford), Barbara Rachelson (D-Burlington), would expand the list of ‘protected’ groups against housing and employment discrimination to include criminal history.
Headrick is an independent on the House Corrections and Institutions Committee. Christie and Rachelson are members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would be the first committee to discuss the bill.
The bill adds another class to anti-discrimination language now in current law: “It shall be unlawful employment practice, except where a bona fide occupational qualification requires individuals of a particular race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, place of birth, age, crime victim status, criminal history, or physical or mental condition.”
VDC asked lead sponsor Headrick whether registered sex offenders would be protected from housing and employment discrimination. He said the bill, which was just released for introduction, requires more study and discussion before answers to specific questions like that become known.
High-capacity, gender-neutral school bathrooms – Another bill co-sponsored by Headrick would require school districts receiving state funding to add high-capacity, gender-neutral school bathrooms to new school creation. H.194 would “require that any nonemergency school construction project receiving State aid include the creation of a high-capacity, gender-neutral restroom.”
It is unclear whether this plan would require a third bathroom in addition to gender-specific bathrooms. The other sponsors are Reps. Emily Carris-Duncan, Ela Chapin, Kate Logan, Kate McCann, Brian Minier.
It’s also unclear whether these bills will ever “come off the wall” for discussion and committee vote. However, another vote is up for a vote by the full House today….
Mutiliation, sex abuse of corpse bill goes to House – H.41, inspired by the murder and corpse mutilation and sex abuse of an elderly Enosburgh woman last year, goes to the House floor today.
Sponsored by House Judiciary Vice-chair Tom Burditt (R-West Rutland) and Enosburg Rep. Allen “ Penny” Demar (-R-), H.41 is supported by the family of an elderly Enosburg woman brutally murdered in a home invasion last July. Roberta Martin, 82, was murdered by a neighbor and her body burned outdoors, police say. Darren Martell, of St. Albans and 23 when the crime was committed, is charged with aggravated murder, punishable by up to life imprisonment without parole.
The bill creates two levels of the felony: abuse of a corpse, and aggravated abuse of a corpse.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State House Spotlight
Have we reached maximum depravity yet?
Nope. Nor does helping ex-cons decades later the right to get out of homelessness or paying thousands of dollars a month for a one-star motel room equal depravity.
Excellent question on whether registered sex offenders would be protected under H.201. Housing for all except for decent, hard-working Vermonters.
So, bands of homeless sex offender roaming the streets sounds better?
What about the people who made a single mistake decades ago and ARE decent, hard-working Vermonters? It sounds like people are up in arms because they want SOME group they can beat down and spit on. Not very Christian. I pray that God judges you NOT as you have judged these people.
High-capacity, gender-neutral school bathrooms – Another bill co-sponsored by Headrick would require school districts receiving state funding to add high-capacity, gender-neutral school bathrooms to new school creation. H.194 would “require that any nonemergency school construction project receiving State aid include the creation of a high-capacity, gender-neutral restroom.”
Give me a break… I’m so tired of this nonsense at taxpayer expense.
This state can barely afford the basics at this point.
I thought that the democrats had a problem with “high capacity” things. Oh yea, that has to do with guns so it is ok to restrict.
“ sponsored by Rep. Troy Headrick (D-Burlington) and Reps. Kevin Christie (D-Hartford), Barbara Rachelson (D-Burlington)”
All Democrats and all full on Alinsky-its. I wonder how long Tool Headrek’s pronouns will remain on his UVM bio. The ANTIFA button on his label will probably be short lived too.
The true purpose is to enable serial squatters to continue to take advantage of unsuspecting Vermonters.
With almost zero protections for landlords, its little wonder there is a housing crisis.
These people now would have the ability to rent, get off the street, and to leave housing programs for those who truly have no other options. If you had your way, they would ALL be forced to squatting or other homelessness.
Trumpfan79: How’s that working out for you these last 4 years?
Democrats always looking for ways to protect their voting block.
Oddly enough, I fully agree with the act to remove at least some of the discrimination which has crept into housing since COVID, and I may even have sent the instigating email.
I am a Christian, first and by far foremost, and also conservative, vote accordingly, believe in family values, and know that although the community should certainly help others in need it can only do what it can afford (notice I did not say the Government should). Here’s how I see it:
Christian teachings emphasize redemption, forgiveness, and the possibility of personal transformation. The concept that individuals who have paid their debt to society deserve a second chance reflects the Christian principles of mercy and rehabilitation. Just as Christianity teaches that all people can be redeemed through faith and genuine repentance, this bill acknowledges that past mistakes shouldn’t permanently define someone’s future.
From a conservative perspective, the bill supports personal responsibility and reducing government dependency. When former offenders can access stable housing and employment, they’re more likely to become self-sufficient taxpaying citizens rather than relying on public assistance. This aligns with conservative values of individual accountability and limited government intervention.
The bill also promotes family stability – a cornerstone of both Christian and conservative values. When former offenders can secure housing and employment, they’re better positioned to support their families and maintain family unity. This strengthens the traditional family structure that both value systems hold dear.
Additionally, from a fiscal conservative standpoint, reducing barriers to employment and housing for former offenders could lower recidivism rates, potentially reducing the tax burden of incarceration and social services. This approach emphasizes the conservative principle of cost-effective governance while promoting public safety through rehabilitation rather than perpetual punishment.
If you take away hope from people, especially those who you KNOW are at a higher risk of doing something stupid under duress, you are actively encouraging them to continue their criminal actions, if not escalate them.
As the person covering the Corrections-focused committees, I dedicate myself to getting the reality of this bill to the public. Expect to hear more perspectives on this as things progress, if they do.
Well said and I agree with you for the most part. However, just as “past mistakes shouldn’t permanently define someone’s future,” The recidivism of dangerous crimes should not be ignored. Again, the “one shoe fits all” approach would not be wise.
You grapple with the faith dynamic side of this issue very well. I’d love to see a lot more in the pews really take hard looks at community issues. Far too many in the pews don’t begin to look at community issues and seek out Biblical solutions. I look forward to your commentaries. With short housing supplies, it is easy to see reason to favor those who have held on to good community values and not caved under duress.
I agree, government imposing their violence against a free people to discriminate for whatever purpose they choose, is not very conservative or christian. Certain types of criminals should not be getting subsidized by hard working taxpayers who work hard and not do crimes. The government should be evicting criminals living on public property in dangerous conditions. If I own a jewelry store, I’m not going to hire a jewelry thief. If I own a bank, I’m not going to hire a bank robber. If I own a restaurant, I’m not going to hire a serial food poisoner. The government has no authority to tell me how I discriminate under the GOD GIVEN right to free association. The government is not a legitimate tool to use violence to impose anyone’s values. These things are up to free individuals and the free community.
So would H.201 still allow background checks on applicants but if something sketch comes up the employer or landlord won’t be able to use their record to Not hire or Not rent? So a bank has someone apply who has been arrested for robbery or fraud etc… would they be forced to hire that person? A landlord has tenants of families and single mothers then receives an application and the person had been arrested for porn or molesting. Would he have to rent to that person? There is too much gray area. I agree that people make mistakes and deserve second chances but there are also some who are just too sketch for some situations. I am curious to know if this is a thing in other states.
wont somebody plz halp the criminals?
If you have been around for a while, you may recall hearing teachers tell you “if you misbehave, it will go on your permanent record”. Never mind.
It seems that in addition to “catch and release criminal Justice some legislators seek to relieve criminals of social consequences of their crimes.
And how does this convince them to change? There would be no point, since they would go through the same hardship, homelessness anyway.
Next up, the proposal to rename Vermont to “Pervmont.” It is more conducive to the reprobate mentality and the willfull degradation of a once decent, ethical society.
Terrible idea. Bad public policy. Landlords and employers should be able to consider a person’s criminal “record” before renting or hiring him or her. What is the purpose of a record if not to create a history to consider? (Incidentally, there has been a huge effort in Vermont to remove any trace of criminal records by expungement). As has been said, landlords and employers should be open to giving individual second chances. By the way, the comments seem to presume the landlords and employers won’t be compassionate. Why? Anyway, the state law should not mandate, in a vacuum, in all circumstances, a prohibition from considering the record in renting or hiring. Unintended consequences abound including further depletion of rental property as fewer property owners are willing to rent.
“Landlords and employers should be able to consider a person’s criminal ‘record’ before renting or hiring him or her. What is the purpose of a record if not to create a history to consider?”
Amen to what Tom said. Exactly. Excellent point.
This is not an all or nothing approach which automatically presupposes that everyone wants to lynch anyone with a criminal record. However, it does put the onus on folks to abide by the law and be responsible and accountable, knowing that when we don’t and aren’t, there are consequences.
And serial arrestees and habitual and sex offenders—especially against children—MUST be in a category completely separate from the guy or gal who had a misdemeanor in 1986. To suggest that the records of a Michael Reynolds or Patrick Ibbotson, et al., should not be available to a prospective landlord is utter stupidity and a complete departure from common sense.p and outs the whole community at risk in the name of not offending someone.
Everything Timothy Page says is right in his acknowledgment of God’s desire for mercy and redemption for all of us sinners. God reveals Himself as the God of compassion, being slow to anger, and abounding in mercy and lovingkindness. But He also, in that same sentence and revelation of Himself, declares that He will not leave the guilty unpunished. Thank God for what Jesus did on our behalf to take away our guilt and make us right with God. But that applies to those who will humble themselves, confess their sins, and repent. He is gracious and compassionate AND He is a God of justice. Behold, then, the kindness AND severity of God.
However, the predisposition by Marxist leaning politicians toward covering up criminal records is bass ackwards and is simply a continuation of the demonic agendas of hell through anarchic policies to undermine public safety and destroy our families, communities, and our nation.
The woke and demonic lunacy of Mayor Emily Stank, and this proposed bill by a politician who appears to care more about how his mustache looks than about public safety, needs to be rejected. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate policies in which arresting and imprisoning peaceful protesters outside abortion mills and at the Capitol on January 6th is perfectly fine, while turning a blind eye to the truly criminal activity of attacking our law enforcement officers and burning our cities, as we saw in 2020.
So let me get this straight: Vermont has a housing crisis caused in part by the lack of available affordable rental units. Landlords already find it expensive or impossible to evict destructive or deadbeat tenants, so now we add persons with a criminal record to the ever-growing list of those the landlord is prohibited from screening. There are thousands of rental units sitting vacant in Vermont because landlords feels it is safer and less expensive to forego the rent than run the risk of litigation or eviction. How in the world does this help?
Will this mean that a convicted bank robber, or other ignominious felon can be employed as a bank teller or a securities broker, etc.? Does this mean that a convicted child molester could not be discriminated against in employment in a daycare? Does this mean that a violent individual can not be eliminated from employment with vulnerable individuals?
Give me a break!
Every one of these irrational proposals coming out of the legislative left this session are reactionary responses to their Trump/Musk derangement syndrome. Imagine how hard it must be to get an appointment with a therapist since the inauguration?
Such a law would only be fair if it provided blanket civil immunity for landlords and employers from being sued by co-tenants and co-workers for their leasing and hiring practices putting them in danger. Seems like the state (and the taxpayers) would then be taking on that liability. Disclaimer: my legal education was at PMRSL (Perry Mason Re-reruns School of Law.
I think any released person from prison should spend the first year of there release with an elected official, Troy Headrick (D-Burlington), Kevin Christie (D-Hartford), Barbara Rachelson (D-Burlington), for starters. that way they can stand up for that person stating they are completly reformed………………………..
Let’s see if they’ll walk the walk !!……….. Nah.
This is the same gaggle of woke legislators who will do everything possible to insult the majority of Vermonters. They continuously espouse their warped values on the majority. But they are, unfortunately, part of a like minded legislature who consider themselves the keepers of all aspects of Vermont life. Thank god we are seeing these crazies being ousted more frequently.
They purposely forget there are only two genders. But because they get their jolly’s off on this sick agenda we need to speed up the process to oust them. They do no represent the majority!!!
STOP this insult on Vermonters!!