By Sam Douglass

As lawmakers return to the statehouse this week, some members of the House Committee on Environment are returning frustrated about a tense exchange that occurred on February 27 about a vote on H.70, a proposed change to the ‘50% conserved land by 2050’ law.

According to members of the committee and available footage, a motion was seemingly made and the committee adjourned without addressing it. However, the Chair of the committee denies breaking any rules. 

Members of the committee view the situation as an attempt to stifle debate on an important bill that has not been given sufficient attention or the opportunity for a vote. Over the week break for Town Meeting, this situation has come to the attention of the public over social media and on Hot Off The Press, VDC’s radio program on WDEV.

H.70, was introduced in January of 2025 by Representative Mark Higley (R-Orleans Lamoille) and aims to make changes to state law established by Act 59 (2023), introduced and shepherded through the Legislature by Environment Chair Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury). Under this law, thirty percent of Vermont’s land area will be in permanent conservation by 2030 and fifty percent by 2050. 

Opponents of this policy argue that to reach these milestones, a significant amount of land from rural areas will be required and removed from the market, reducing agricultural lands and rural development. To combat this, H.70 seeks to include property classified under Vermont’s current use program, which supporters claim will allow Vermont to meet its 2050 goal easily. 

H.70 has already generated intrigue this year with a failed attempt early last month by Representative Gina Galfetti to bring the legislation directly to the House floor for a vote. Some members of the House voiced their opposition to the vote as an usurpation of process, as bills are usually voted out of the committee back to the floor after the committee has had the opportunity to look at them. However, Galfetti claimed that her attempt was due to the failure of the committee to allow the bill such an opportunity. 

Representative Rob North (R-Addison 3) and Representative Michael Tagliavia (R-Orange 1), both members of House Environment, took up the effort to move H.70 forward February 27.

Near the beginning of witness testimony on the bill, Chair Sheldon set an expectation that witnesses would only have ten minutes to speak due to time constraints, a decision that drew objection by Representative Michael Tagliavia. 

Immediately following testimony, Sheldon adjourned the committee, which drew a swift response from North who wanted to continue discussion on the bill. “Wait, before we adjourn, before we adjourn, will we have time to continue this conversation in this room?” 

According to North, the supporters of H.70 on the committee had been assured they would have more opportunity to discuss the bill. It was at this point that North made his motion.

In response to a request for comment, Sheldon denied allegations of rule breaking and stated that the Clerk of the House has ruled that the committee was adjourned prior to the motion being made-making the motion invalid. 

While the established Rules of the House do not specify rules on committee procedure for these issues, the Clerk affirmed that there is support for the current practice of discretion and authority for committee chairs to set the agenda and to adjourn at will, under Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure. Mason’s is similar to the Robert’s Rules of Order that Vermonters use on Town Meeting Day, but they differ greatly in some areas. 

The Clerk of the House did not respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment. 

For North and Tagliavia, this situation has highlighted a separate, yet well-known, question of the power and authority of committee chairs and leadership in the legislature, as they wield immense power over policy and other equally elected Representatives and Senators. 

In committee, the chair sets the agenda, controls testimony, and decides which bills are considered or ignored. However, their decisions are usually influenced to a great degree by party leadership, the Speaker of the House, or the Senate ProTempore. While this concentration of power by the very few is the common practice across legislatures, North sees it as a fundamental flaw in the legislative system. 

According to North, he and other members of the committee asked Sheldon to bring H.70 to the table for discussion on multiple occasions, yet it took multiple conversations with the GOP’s leader in the House, Patricia McCoy, who then had conversations with the Speaker of the House, who in turn asked Chair Sheldon to provide committee time on H.70. 

“I was just trying to bring forward what the voters sent us here to do and as committee members we have the right to bring up these things and have votes on them. It’s supposed to be a deliberative system but nothing in the statehouse moves without the approval of only a couple people in power and they get what they want. The chairs are only allowed to do what those few people say. You’d think that it’s supposed to be a democratic system but it’s run like a tyranny,” said North.