by Dave Soulia on FYIVT.com
In March 2024, the Vermont Legislature passed H.872, now known as Act 124, imposing heightened accountability on law enforcement officers (LEOs). The bill was sponsored by the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs. The act requires the Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC) to establish a statewide Law Enforcement Officers’ Code of Conduct, holding officers to strict on-duty and off-duty standards. Violations can result in decertification, effectively ending an officer’s career.
While accountability is essential, Act 124 unfairly singles out law enforcement officers while ignoring judges, attorneys, and legislators, whose actions often wield greater influence over the justice system. Adding to this imbalance, the Vermont Legislature failed to conduct a roll call vote on the bill, leaving the public without clarity on who supported or opposed this measure. For a law centered on accountability, this lack of transparency undermines its intent.
The Vermont Criminal Justice Council
The VCJC is a multi-member body responsible for overseeing law enforcement certification, training, and conduct. Its diverse membership includes law enforcement officials, legal professionals, civilian representatives, and academic experts, ensuring a balance of expertise and public accountability. This structure positions the VCJC as an ideal candidate to oversee not only law enforcement but also judges, attorneys, and legislators, establishing consistent standards across all justice system actors.
The Scope of Act 124
Act 124 places LEOs under heightened scrutiny, particularly for off-duty behavior. The proposed Code of Conduct includes prohibitions against:
- Untruthfulness: Lying in personal or professional contexts that undermines trust.
- Domestic Violence: Any involvement in domestic abuse, whether on or off duty.
- Misuse of Position: Leveraging their role for personal gain or influence.
- Discrimination: Engaging in biased behavior that reflects poorly on the profession.
- Substance Use: While Act 124 does not specifically address marijuana, LEOs are generally prohibited from using it under departmental policies and federal law, even though marijuana is legal in Vermont.
This marijuana prohibition is a separate issue but exemplifies the broader disparity in accountability. Judges, attorneys, and legislators, who face no such restrictions, can legally use marijuana without professional repercussions. If marijuana use undermines public trust for LEOs, why does the same logic not apply to others in the justice system?
Disparities in Accountability
Accountability for on-duty misconduct is consistent across all justice system participants. However, Act 124’s focus on off-duty behavior highlights glaring inconsistencies:
- Judges: Governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct, they are expected to maintain integrity and impartiality. Yet, off-duty actions like discriminatory behavior or substance use rarely lead to removal unless they directly impair their duties.
- Attorneys: Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct, enforced by the Professional Responsibility Board (PRB), primarily emphasize on-duty ethics and professional competence. Off-duty misconduct, including substance use, is often addressed confidentially during early stages of investigation or through rehabilitative measures like the Bar Assistance Program, which focuses on correction rather than punishment.
- Confidentiality of Proceedings: The PRB maintains confidentiality during the investigative and rehabilitative phases of its process, but certain cases, such as those advancing to formal charges, are subject to public hearings. In contrast, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC) tends to operate with greater public visibility throughout its enforcement proceedings, particularly in cases of decertification.
- Legislators: There are no mechanisms for holding lawmakers accountable for off-duty behavior, leaving them insulated from consequences unless public pressure forces action.
This imbalance creates the perception that law enforcement officers are being unfairly targeted while others evade similar scrutiny. The marijuana hypocrisy, where LEOs face restrictions while other key actors do not, is a clear example of this disparity.
A Call for Uniform Standards
To restore fairness, Vermont must adopt uniform off-duty standards for all actors in the justice system. The VCJC, already tasked with overseeing law enforcement conduct, is well-suited to serve as the central oversight body. Its existing mechanisms for investigation, enforcement, and public accountability could easily be adapted to apply to judges, attorneys, and legislators.
A consistent system would include:
- Clear Standards: Off-duty misconduct, including untruthfulness, misuse of position, discrimination, and substance abuse, would be explicitly defined for all roles.
- Equitable Penalties: LEOs face decertification; judges could face removal from the bench, attorneys disbarment, and legislators expulsion.
- Transparent Oversight: A single body overseeing all groups would ensure impartiality and eliminate inconsistencies in enforcement.
Expanding the VCJC’s authority to include all justice system participants would address the current disparity, ensuring that accountability is applied evenly and consistently.
Conclusion
Public trust in Vermont’s justice system cannot rest solely on the shoulders of law enforcement officers. Judges, attorneys, and legislators play equally critical roles in upholding justice and must be held to the same level of accountability. Act 124, in singling out LEOs for heightened off-duty scrutiny while others in the justice system escape similar standards, creates an unfair and unbalanced system that undermines its intent.
This ongoing assault on Vermont’s law enforcement community, combined with selective accountability, is having real consequences. Morale among officers is plummeting, retention rates are declining, and recruitment struggles are growing as the profession becomes an increasingly less attractive career path. By unfairly targeting LEOs while exempting others, Vermont risks weakening its law enforcement agencies and, by extension, public safety.
Expanding the VCJC’s authority to oversee all actors in the justice system would establish a truly fair and transparent accountability framework. It would also send a clear message: accountability is not a burden borne by one profession alone. Until Vermont holds all justice system participants to the same standard, the heightened scrutiny on LEOs will remain a symbol of bias rather than meaningful reform. True accountability requires fairness, consistency, and respect for those who serve.