Legislative History – Variations on a Theme
The
following documents offer various perspectives on doing legislative
history in Vermont. Their posting here implies no endorsement of their
content; indeed, some are quite out of date. They are edited only to
the extent that superfluous material has been [omitted], and minor
grammatical errors have been corrected. Nothing here is offered, nor
should anything be construed, as legal advice.
DOCUMENT 1
TO: [Omitted]
FROM: [Omitted]
SUBJECT: Vermont Legislative Intent
DATE: October 13, 1993
In response to the NCSL survey, I am forwarding the completed form and the attached materials.
Several comments are in order
with respect to legislative research for intent purposes in Vermont.
First and foremost, the Vermont courts do cite legislative intent.
Court Interperetation
While
particular emphasis is placed on a statute’s plain meaning, the
courts do not ignore supporting documentation that is indicative of
intent.
Most
recently, in Kelley v. Moguls, 4 VT Law Week 157 (1993), there is a
reiteration of the Vermont judicial interpretation with respect to
legislative intent. As you will read from the highlighted language, the
Vermont Supreme court does indeed place its emphasis on the actual
statute. However, the court (sic) is not adverse to citing from
journals and original bills to sustain a ruling. On occasion, the
Vermont Legislative Council has received judicial requests to review
bill files.
Legislative Reports
Enclosed is
a compilation entitled Reports in the Journals of the Vermont House and
Senate. This publication was edited at the Vermont State Archives in
the Secretary of State’s Office. It provides the most
comprehensive source to legislative reports that have appeared in the
House or Senate journals. As the text indicates, since the early 1930s
legislative reports have been published separately.
Legislative History
A companion
publication entitled “How a Bill Becomes Law” was also
written at the State Archives. However, on Page 3 entitled
“Vermont Legislative History”, the text indicates that
drafting files may be viewed at the Division of Public Records. This is
incorrect; all drafting, or as we refer to them bill files, must be
requested from and viewed at the Legislative Council. Due to the
statutory legislator-counselor privilege in drafting, all files must be
reviewed by a staff member of the Council before they may be viewed by
the general public.
In compiling
a legislative history, the attorney or researcher should start at the
Legislative Council. The Council maintains a collection of House and
Senate journals dating from the 1940s. Similarly, we also maintain an
original bill collection that dates from 1945 forward. Complete
collections of these documents are available at the state library. The
researcher initially can consult the Vermont Statutes Annotated to
determine the session law source of a particular statutory section.
Section affected tables are published in the annual session law
volumes. The original bill numbers are indicated with the individual
session law.
Each bill
that is introduced into either house of the General Assembly is indexed
with respect to all action taken in the respective journal of each
chamber. The journals will include roll call votes and amendments (from
committees or the floor). Bills are frequently, but not always, printed
in the journal after either second or third reading. If a bill is not
amended in committee, it may not be printed in the final version of the
journal and reference will be made during the dabate to the bill books
that contain the original bills of that legislative session.
Journalized comments, roll call votes and divsion votes are printed. As
for voice votes, the journal will indicate that third reading was
agreed to, the bill was passed, or that it was messaged to the other
chamber or the governor.
The journals, original bills, session laws and statutory complations
will provide the starting materials for a legislative history. As noted
in the guide, review of prior statutory compilations and pocket parts
alterations is important. These printed sources are available in the
state library. The journals do not contain a verbatim transcript of
floor proceedings.
Beyond these
materials, the researcher can review the bill file, through the
Legislative Council or listen to committee tapes. The committees began
to systematically record both meetings and hearings in 1967 when the
Legislative Council was organized. In certain instances, the tapes have
been transcribed and microfilmed. Not all committee proceedings are
available on tape. The tapes and films are stored at the Division of
Public Records in Middlesex, but if the researcher initially visits the
Council, the process is expedited. Council staff will confirm the
existence of a tape or transcript as well as the film or tape number.
Separately,
the State Archives maintains all original bills enacted since 1800 and
the committee clerks’ files. These are the notes and tallies that
the member clerks, as distinguished from clerical clerks, take at the
committee meetings. While they date from 1917, they are not necessarily
complete for each session and there are significant gaps from some
committees.
Historical notes
The
researcher should be aware that in Vermont the second or annual session
only started in 1968. Prior to that date, the Legislature met regularly
in odd numbered years and in a number of special sessons during both
odd and even numbered years. On occasion special sessions are still
held in the summer of fall. The latest was in the summer of 1993. Bills
in Vermont during the biennial sesson remain pending through the
subsequent adjourned session. The numbering is sequential throughout
the two year biennium. The adjourned session is not restricted to
specified topics, and members may introduce new legislation during
either session.
Until 1836,
Vermont was a unicameral state. The Senate was created in that year by
a constitutional amendment. The Senate replaced the Governor’s
Council. Until 1870, Vermont had a Council of Censors which met
decennially at the beginning of the decade to suggest potential
constitutional amendments and other governmental reforms. The
proceedings of these meetings have been collected in a recently
released volume entitled Records of the Council of Censors, that was
published by the Vermont Secretary of State’s office. This volume
is an important guide to the political and governmental deliberations
that were occurring from the late 18th century, prior to statehood
until the post Civil War period.
DOCUMENT 2
Vermont Legislative History:
Where to find it and what to do with it
Statutory construction, like
medicine, is not an exact science, but there are ways of seeing what
statutes mean. The plain meaning is one place to start. Then there are
the latin rules – ejusdem generis, expressio unius est esclusio
alterius, in pari materia, and reddendo singula singulis. Sometimes
newer beats older, specific beats general, meaningful beats absurd
results. (State v. Lynch, 137 VT 607 (1979)). “Even the most
basic general principles of statutory construction,” however,
“must yield to clear contrary evidence of legislative
intent” as found in the history of a statute. (National R.
Passenger Corp. v. National Association of R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453,
38 L.Ed.2d 646, 94 S.Ct. 690 (1974)).
Vermont legislative history is
where you find it. The hunt may be arduous, the game uncertain, but if
you follow the simple steps outlined in this paper, you may at least
test, knowing you have learned what can be learned about the
legislative history of a statute. The first rule is to go to
Montpelier.[footnote omitted; comment only]. In Montpelier, you find
the State House with little trouble. In addition to the committee
rooms, the chambers of the Vermont House of Representatives and Senate,
and legislative library, you will need to find the Legislative Council
offices. You will also want to learn the location of the Office of the
Secretary of State, at Redstone, on Terrace Street; of the Division of
Public Records [old address omitted]; of the State Library, at 111
State Street; and of the Vermont Historical Society Library, on the
first floor of the Pavilion Building, at 109 State Street.
The next rule is to learn what
you can from the statute. For the purpose of illustration, let’s
assume our assignment is to research the legislative history of the
Appeals Panel. [footnote omitted; comment only]. Looking at the
publisher’s notes at the end of 3 V.S.A. sec. 114a, you find,
“Added 1973, No. 267 (Adj. Sess), sec. 2; amended 1983, No. 220
(Adj. Sess), sec. 9.” This means the statute was first enacted in
1974. [footnote omitted; comment only]. No. 267 is the act number. The
original text as enacted may be found in the Acts and Resolves of
Vermont 1973 (Adj. Sess.), an annual publication of the Secretary of
State and easily found in most public libraries. The 1974 act was
amended in 1984, according to these notes. The Revision Notes below
them give a brief description of how that amendment did.
Looking at the enabling
legislation of the Appeals Panel (1973, No. 267 (Adj. Sess.)), on page
590 of the Acts and Resolves of Vermont 1973 (Adj. Sess.) just below
the caption, we see a parenthetical number, “(H. 528).”
This tells is that Act 267 was originally introduced as a House bill,
H. 528. [footnote omitted; comment only]. This clue leads us inexorably
to the next step, tracing the progress of the bill.
Turn to the House Journals for
the years 1973 and 1974. H. 528 could have been introduced in either
year, so both volumes need to be checked, although the large number
should give us a hint that it is a bill from the adjourned session. In
fact, it was first introduced in 1974.
The place to start is Appendix
B in the House Journal. Each bill and its enactment or consideraton
history of briefly described there. On page 929, for instance, under H.
528 and after the title, you will find a similar type paragraph that
explains,
| Rep. by C. on H. & W., rd.
1st t., pl. on Cal., 197-198; ref. to C. on Appr., 202; rep. fav. w.
amend., rd. 2nd t., recom. of amend. amended, recom. of amend. not
amend., recom. of amend. agreed to., rls. susp., ord. mess. to Sen.,
6410646; Sen. mess., pass. in con. w. prop. of amend., 793; rls. susp.,
Sen. mess., pass. in con. w. rpop. of amend. con. in, rls. susp., act.
ord. mess. to Sen. & bill ord. delvd. to Gov., 796; Gov. mess.,
app. 873-874 |
Let’s translate, using
the abbreviation list at the beginning of Appendix B. H. 529 was
reported by the Committee on Health and Welfare in the House, read the
first time and placed on the Calendar. On pages 197-198, we can see
that Mr. Sloan of Rutland City introduced the bill for the Committee on
Tuesday, February 12, 1974, that it was read the first time and, under
the rule, placed on the Calendar for notice the following day.
[footnote omitted; comment only]. A thorough researcher will want to
see a copy of this bill as introduced, to begin tracing its evolution
at this early stage. Copies of all bills as introduced may be found in
bound volumes in the Legislative Council library, for at least the last
two decades. We also ought to visit the State Papers to look at the
original act, which will reveal at a glance how the bill as introduced
was changed before it was signed into law by the Governor.
Because H. 528 is a committee
bill (introduced not by individual legislators, but by a committee), we
will also want to investigate the minutes of the House Committee on
Helath and welfare for 1973 and 1974, to learn what events brought the
Committee to the realization H. 528 was necessary. Calling the Divison
of Public Records before we visit that office, we can also arrange to
see the draftsman’s notes an early drafts of the bill, showing
its prereporting history. These files are more likely to be useful in
legislative searches for bills with sponsors than those by committee,
since bills with sponsors tend to be more privileged and involve a
longer prepublication drafting process. [footnote omitted]
Back to our hieroglyphics now,
we learn that H. 528 is referred to the Committee on Appropriations. On
page 202 of the House Journal we learn this occurred on Wednesday,
February 13. Which committees consider a bill may be vitally important
in tracing its legislative history, since all committees keep minutes
of their daily activity and many committees, at least since 1970, tape
record and have transcripts made of hearings on their work. [footnote
omitted; comment only] All committee minutes, except for the current
year, are kept in State papers, the state’s archives at Redstone.
To use the transcripts, you should call the Legislative Council with
the number of the bill and the list of committees that considered it,
to learn the reel number of microfilm on which those transcripts may be
found. The microfilm is kept at Public Records. You can go there in
person to view it, or order copies made by phone (828-3288).
H. 528 stayed in the
comfortable hands of the Appropriations Committee until Thursday, March
28, when it started to move again. Mr. Hebard of Glover reported in
favor of its passage on that day in its amended version. The
Appropriations Committee, by this report, proposed to “strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof” a new
version of the bill. This new version of H. 528 should be added to your
legislative history file next to the copy as originally introduced back
on February 12, to see what changes have been made in the interim.
Transcripts and minutes will also be useful in some cases to show the
thinking behind the amendments.
Page 645 of the House Journal
for March 28 tells us “the bill, having appeared on the Calendat
one day for motice, was taken up, read the second time and pending the
question, Will the House amend the bill as recommended by the Committee
on Appropriations?” Mr Sloan of Rutland City, Mr. Haley of
Bennington and Mr. Tudhope of South Burlington each moved to amend the
amendment proposed by the Appropriations committee. Mr. Sloan and Mr.
Tudhope were successful, but Mr. Haley’s motion to amend failed.
[footnote omitted; comment only] A third reading of the bill was
ordered, Mr Tudhope of South Burlington moved and the House voted to
suspend the rules, and the bill passed that day. The rules were ordered
further suspended and the bill was ordered messaged to the Senate
forthwith.
In other words, H. 528 was
ready to go when it hit the House floor on March 28. The committee and
the legislative leadership had done their work and, with the rules
suspensions, the bill traveled to the Senate and eventually through all
later stages of passage, in time to avoid the early April adjournment
of the General Assembly.
Now we must turn to the Senate
Journal for 1974, to follow the bill’s progress in that chamber.
Looking at the Appendix under H. 528, we learn that the bill was
| Rec. fr. H., 475; rd. &
ref., 476; rep. fav. w. props. of amend., rd. 2nd t., props. of amend.
offered by Sen. Harwood 7 agreed to, further prop. of amend. offered by
Sen. Daniels & agreed to & 3rd rdg. or., rules susp., all
stages, rd. 3rd t. & passed iun con. w. props. of amend., ord.
mess. to H. pursuant to Temp. Ruls, 600-601; H. mess. S. props. of
amend. con. in, 657-658; H. mess. Gov. app. 661-662. |
Waiving consecutive
translation, this means H. 528 was received from the House, and then
referred to the Senate judiciary Committee. Pages 475 and 476 of the
Senate Journal tell us this happened on March 29, 1974. Further, the
bill was reported favorably [footnote omitted; comment that bill was
actually reported without recommendation] with proposals of amendment
by Senator Buckley, for the Committee, read the second time, with
proposals of amendment adopted, the third reading ordered, passed in
concurrance with the proposals of amendment, and returned to the House.
These last steps occurred on April 3. Looking back to the House Journal
(page 796), we see that H. 528 passed the House that same day, the
House agreeing to the proposals of amendment, and sent on to the
Governor. The Governor signed H. 528 into law on April 4.
Looking back over the progress
of H. 528, we can only be grateful its progress was so easy. Proposed
on February 12 and finally made law on April 4, reviewed by three
committees, amended twice since its introduction, the enactment stage
of the bill’s legislative history is nice and neat. Not all
legislation had it so easy.
Let’s go back over that
same ground now, and see what happened to H. 528, as it relates to the
Appeals Panel, as it progressed from committee to committee and House
to Senate. For this discussion, we will be using five basic sources
– the draftsman’s file on H. 528, which is in the custody
of Public Records; the bill as introduced, which is found in the
library of the Legislative Council; the original act, as amended, which
is in the custody of State Papers; the minutes of committees
considering H. 528, which are at State Papers; and finally the
transcripts of committee hearings, which are at Public Records. We will
want to look at these documents in this order, in part to appreciate
the chronological history of a bill, and in part because the minutes
will save us time hunting through the microfilm transcripts of
committees to find the days committees discussed particular bills.
The draftsman’s file is
available through Public Records, but it may be stored in Waterbury.
Public Records will bring the file to Montpelier at our request, but
since this may take a day or two, we will want to call ahead to make
arrangements to see the file. Some attorneys find great insight in
these files; others remain unconvinced of their usefulness. For this
exercise, we viewed the file on H. 528 and found the material
unhelpful. It was disorganized, and gave is no insight into what was in
the mind of the Committee of the draftsman. That will not be true in
every case.
We went to the library at the
Legislative Council to find a copy of H. 528 as originally introduced
by the House Health and Welfare Committee. Making a copy, we went up
the hill to Redstone, to look at what happened to H. 528 when it became
Act 267.
Section 2 of H. 528 as
originally introduced relates to the Appeals Panel. While our review
revealed little new information in this instance, the differences
between legislation as introduced, amended and enacted can be a fertile
area for insight into what the Legislature intended. The knowledge of
what ideas were considered and rejected, strengthened or weakened,
glided or stripped, may well be useful in making an argument to
elucidate the meaning of the law as enacted.
The manuscript of Act 267 tells
is where H. 528 went on its progress from bill to act, including the
committees that considered it and the changes that were made to it by
the committees along the way. This gave us the information we needed on
what to look for in the committee minutes. Committee minutes,
incidentally, appear in two forms, the “Record of Action”
and the “Record of Committee Meeting.” The former shows
when the committee considered the bill and is usually the more useful
document, since it may include notes on what is said about a bill as it
is considered. The latter is the briefer of the two documents, and
shows how the committee voted on the bill.
We started with the committee
minutes for the House Committee on Health and Welfare for 1973 and
1974, at least through February 12, 1974, when the bill left the
incubation of the committee room. The most revealing document in the
file was the “Report of the House Health and Welfare Committee
1973-1974 Session.” Reports of this sort are rare in
Vermont’s legislative archives, and very welcome, too. Signed by
each member of the committee, the Report has this to say about H. 528:
The longest hours were put on
H. 528, to place 21 licensing boards in the office of the Secretary of
State. The committee met with representatives of all the licensing
boards and held two public hearings on the subject. There was a great
deal of opposition to the bill by the various licensing boards when
this was first presented – 80 pages long – it appeared to
be setting up a super board over these independent groups. Ron Albee,
the legislative draftsman assigned to the committee worked long and
faithfully with the committee. Finally, the bill was cut to seven
pages. It places 21 boards which had been moved to the Agency of Human
Services or other agencies in the office of the Secretary of State and
establishes a review panel to handle complaints not taken care of by
the individual boards. This has been a piece of legislation long
needed. For the committee it was an excellent experience in cooperative
effort, and understanding of how to put a bill together to meet the
needs of many groups and the state.
Deeper in the file, we
discovered that H. 528 was actually a reaction to several bills
introduced earlier in the session. Bills to license opticians, auto
mechanics, psychologists, and nursing home administrators were debated
that session. On February 6, 1973, Senator Alden appears before the
committee. The minutes are excellent here. Alden “favors
discontinuing establishing boards unless consumers are included. He
said the Senate was going to take no action on these bills that involve
establishing boards until a study is made on the subject.” He
says they have “no accountability and also feels thay have not
up-graded their respective trades and professions.” The committee
hears testimony from its own members on mismanagement, double standards
and overlapping of boards.
On February 28, 1973, it hears
from Attorney General Kimberly Cheney, who testifies to the problem
with licensing boards and proposes the creation of one board to take
care of all licensing matters. On March 8 of that year, the committee
considers a resolution on licensing boards proposing a study of the
problem for the coming summer.[footnote omitted; legislative
information on the resolution]
The minutes for this committee
of January 3, 1974 begin with discussion of draft 6 of draft bill
74-108. Clearly the idea of a superboard has now been replaced with an
umbrella board, but the minutes state that “licensing board
should be sure specialty boards do not become too restrictive.”
On January 8, the committee notes explain that the “intent [of
the bill] was to control all boards so they do not become
exclusive.” On January 15, the minutes say that the bill
“does not destroy the value of professional boards but encourages
each one to hold high standards of performance...” On January 16,
at a joint meeting with the House Commerce Committee, the Health and
Welfare Committee minutes list the reasons for the bill, including
providing a “method of appealing if someone fails an exam”
and “any hearing should be in line with ‘right to
know’ law.” Finally, on February 7, the committee votes out
draft 12A of 74-108 unanimously, starting it on its official way to
enactment. It now becomes H. 528, the number being the one next
assigned in the cue by the Legislative Council.
The House Appropriations
Committee minutes on H. 528 are unfortunately very sparse, showing the
record of action on the bill, that the Committee voted to delete the
section pertaining to removing boards’ funds, that Mr. Hebard
reported the bill, and that three members of the Committee abstained
when it came to a vote.[footnote omitted; comment suggesting value of
first-person recollections, in this case, Mr. Hebard]
Unlike the Congress and many
other states, Vermont does not have a system of reporting floor
speeches. While what was said may be memorable, it is seldom
transcribed and may not be that useful in court. [State of Vermont v.
Brinegar, 379 F. Supp. 606, 611 (1974).]
Crossing over to the Senate,
the minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee are also very sparse,
They show little more than that the Committee voted H. 528 out without
recommendation.
Down the hill now to Public
Records, we turned to the public hearings and committee meetings on H.
528 which have been transcribed. Before reaching Public Records, we
called the Legislative Council (828-2231) to learn the dates of these
transcribed hearings, and the microfilm reel numbers. The House Health
and Welfare Committee held hearings during the summer of 1973 on the
idea of this bill, on July 11, August 21, and September 6, and these
transcripts are to be found on reel F 5229. The same Committee held a
joint hearing with the House General and Military Affairs Committee on
the bill on February 12, 1974, and this is transcribed and is now
stored on microfilm at Public Records on reel F 5229.
Microfilm has its own problems,
and the copies made from it are expensive (25 cents a page) and very
difficult to read. The best idea is to sit in one of Public Records
booths and read the transcript, copying down the information we may
feel is useful, rather than having copies made and then trying to
figure out what they mean later on.
The summer hearings are not
useful to us. They consist of discussions and arguments with various
professional associations and licensing boards, but the fact that no
bill has been drafted at this point makes it difficult to draw
conclusoins on H. 528.
The transcript of the February
12, 1974 hearing is interesting, but not very useful as a statement of
legislative history. The parade of witnesses from licensing boards
repeat the inevitable fear that the boards will lose power from this
bill, and the Committee does its best to console them. The introductory
remarks of Chairman Sloan are useful:
First of all I would like to
say why we have H. 528 as a possible bill...A year ago now the House
and Senate were flooded with requests from the Boards. We had the
feeling that some of the boards were more intersted in themselves than
in the consumer...The Attorney General felt that in some cases the
statutes governing the boards were not being carried out...
What “de novo”
means comes up, and Ronald Albee explains that it does not mean to
start all over again, but that all the factors would be considered.
[Hearing on H. 528, House Health and Welfare Committee, February 12,
1974, p. 15] On questioning, Representative Garfield explains that the
Panel is to be established to provide an interim step between the
boards and the courts, at nearly no cost to the appellants, as a
disinterested body that would “hear both sides almost like a
court.” By “both sides,” Mr. Garfield implies he is
talking about a board and a licensee. [footnote omitted; Mr.
Garfield’s full quote, citing to p. 41 of the transcript] The
speed with which the Panel might hear matters, as opposed to the
courts, is also given as an objective of this administrative appeals
process. [Transcript, at p. 42]
The transcript of the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing of March 29, 1974 is less meaty, but still
valuable. Chairman Sloan of the House Health and Welafer Committee
testifies at the hearing. From his testimony we learn about two reports
on which the bill is based, one by the Joint Fiscal Committee and
another by Jack Lindley, Jr. Unfortunately, like so many reports, they
are not available to us from the resources and repositories at our
command.
Richard Thomas, then Secretary
of State, testified that the “appeals panel will allow the
consumers, the public and potential licensees an avenue of appeal that
isn’t burdensomely expensive as going through the courts would be
to appeal the decision of the boards.” [Transcript. p. 9] Thomas
adds that matters involving a person’s character will be kept
confidential, and regarded as exempt from the right to know law.
The legislative history of H.
528 is rich anough to answer a dozen questions we might have about the
meaning of the laws governing the Appeals Panel. We have been
lucky.[footnote omitted]
[Remaining six pages omitted;
contained general discussion of courts’ evoloving views on
legislative history and hypotheticals]
Paul S. Gillies
January 20, 1985
DOCUMENT 3
The General Assembly: a Potpourri
compiled by the Vermont State Archives, 1994
[from page 101]
The Vermont Legislative Record: a Brief Overview
Scattered acress various
Vermont government offices---the State Archives, the Public Records
Division, the Department of Libraries, and the Legislative
Council---are the records of the legislative branch from 1777 to the
present. These documents not only provide a historical record, they
also satisfy Chapter I, Article 6 of the Vermont Consitution, which
state that all officers of government are accountable to the people.
The Vermont legislative record
is not always thorough; some years or eras are much more solidly
documented than others. Early unpublished records, from approximately
1777 to 1850, include petitions to the General Assembly, legislative
committee reports, memoranda of clerks, and debentures, credentials and
oaths of members of the General Assembly. There are also bills that
failed and original acts. Legislative records from 1850 to 1917 are
few; very few government records of any kind exist for the second half
of the nineteenth century. There are bills as introduced and original
acts but little else. The much more abundant records in this century
include tapes of committee meetings and hearings starting in circa
1917, manuscript bill files, committee minutes and records of action,
bills as introduced, original acts, committee reports and reports to
the legislature, Legislative Council studies, as well as photographs of
legislators, lobbyist and employer records, records of the Order of
Women Legislators (OWLs), and records of individual legislators such as
Senators Sally Conrad and John Finn, Representatives Lyle Rice, Dora
Gephrags, and Speaker of the House Stephan Morse.
The location and description of
all Vermont legislative records is, however, a project we will embrace
some other day. Within this body of legislative records are some which
elucidate the intent of the legislature, and show why certain
legislation passed and what it was expected to accomplish. The
following is a list of these special records that can be used to
determine legislative intent. (This list dow not include the published
books which help track legislative intent: Vermont Statutes Annotated,
House Journals, Senate Journals, Laws of Vermont, and Compiled
Statutes). For a detailed narrative on how to conduct a legislative
intent, see “Vermont Legislative History: Where to find it and
what to do with it” by Paul Gillies.
Legislative Records Used to Research Legislative Intent
1. Bills as Introduced (House & Senate):
a. State Library: 1853; 1863-present
b. State Archives: 1985-present
Includes all bills, whether enacted or not.
2. Original Acts & Resolves:
a. State Archives: 1779-present
Original Acts & Resolves
are deposited at the Secretary of State’s Office pursuant to
Vermont Statutes Annotated T.3 §§ 104, 106. The intent of the
legislature can (in some cases) be gleaned from the original act, which
shows the original wording of the bill and the changes that were made
before passage of the act.
3. Legislative Committee Minutes and Records of Action:
a. State Archives: 1917-present
Under House and Senate rule
#29, the clerks of House and Senate committees are required to record
committee minutes and records of action and to file them at the Office
of the Secretary of State. The minutes record what the commirree
members discussed on a particular day, the members of the committee
present, the bills considered, and the names of any people who appeared
before the committee. The records of action record any action that was
taken ona bill such as the amendments proposed in committee, the names
of persons requesting a hearing, the dates considered by the committee,
and what members voted for or against the bill. Committee records can
also inlcude supporting material such as studies, correspondence, and
model legislation. The minutes and records of action range from very
detailed to very sketchy.
4. Bill files (Manuscript bills)
a. Public Records: 1940-present
The bill files include
draftman’s (sic) notes, correspondence between the draftsman and
sponsor, and early drafts of the bill. These files are restricted and
researchers must receive permission from the Legislative Council to
view them.
5. Committee transcripts/tapes
a. Public Records: 1965-present
Public Records holds
transcripts & audiotapes of legislative hearings and committee
meetings. (In recent years, the legislative council (sic) has not had
the funds to make transcripts of many of the tapes.) The best way to
access the transcripts or tapes is to call the Legislative Council and
let them know the bill number, the year and the committees that
considered the bill. They will let you know what box or microfilm roll
number to look for at Public Records.
DOCUMENT 4
Legislative History in Vermont
1.
Begin with the Vermont Statutes Annotated. Following the section of
interest, the citations for the original legislation appear, looking
like this: 1983, No. 48 (Ajd. Sess.), sec. 1.
For example, we’ll look
at 1983, No. 48 (Adj. Sess.), sec 1, folowing T.10 V.S.A. sec.
6602(15). “No. 48” is the act number of 1983 (Adjourned
Session), found in the 1984 session laws. Biennial sessions are
indicated by the lack of an “Adj. Sess.” note; the year
specified is the actual year passed.
2.
Turning to the Act in the session laws (Acts and Resolves Passed by the
General Assembly of the State of Vermont...), to the Act itself
(printed in numerical order), we see in parenthesis at the beginning
“(S.175)”, which is the bill number. In earlier volumes of
the session laws, the bill number isnot printed; you need to determine
the bill number by going to the index in the House or Senate journal
for the appropriate year. The bill number stays the same regardless fo
the chamber (House or Senate) in which the bill is being considered.
3.
Going next to the Journal of the Senate of the State of Vermont, you
will find, preceding the general index, both a table of Senate bills
and a table of House bills and resolutions considered. In the table of
Senate bills, in numerical order, the bill number is followed by an
account (in abbreviated form) of the bill’s travels through that
chamber. The abbreviations are explained at the beginning of the Table.
From this account, one can identify which committees the bill went to
for consideration. In the example, “Rd.&ref.,4”
indicated that the bill was read and referred (to a committee) on page
4 of the Journal. You can turn to page 4 to see which committee.
Identify, from the abbreviations, all committees to which the bill went.
4.
The process is the same in the Journal of the House.... Go to the Table
of Senate Bills, and glean from the account which committee(s)
considered the bill.
5.
Having gathered the necessary information, the actual compilation of
history can start. Available from the Division of public Records are
notes made by hte people who drafted the bill. These are not
necessarily public records, however. The Legislative Council must be
called to request the notes from Public Records (a process which can
take a couple of days), who will send them to the Council, who will
purge any confidential information before allowing public access. The
bill, as introduced, is available at the Department of Libraries and
the Legislative Council. Upon introduction, a bill is sent to
committee. The committees’ deliberations are placed in a folder,
once again available from Public Records via a request through the
Legislative Council. Submissions of written testimony or transcripts of
testimony are open to the public; however, a call still needs to be
made to the Council to obtain the correct film. It is to obtain the
folder that the year and bill number is needed. The folders for
committees held between 1917 and 1953 are listed
chronologically/alphabetically with an indication of their contents in
Guide to the Legislative Committee Minutes Held by the State Archives
division 1917-1953 (Vermont, Secretary of State, [Montpelier?],
[1985?]) at call number V 328.743/V59g, and shelved at the Reference
Desk.
Paul J. Donovan
Law Librarian
DOCUMENT 5
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE: December 16, 1992
RE: Research on Legislative Vermont History
I had occasion to do some
research on legisoative history a while ago, which is so cumbersome and
convoluted and exactly the kind of thing I can’t remember for
more than a couple of days, that I thought I should write down the
process for myself. I hope it’s useful to you too.
At the end of the statute your
(sic) concerned with, in VSA, you will find the year, act number and
section number for the statute and for each amendment. Under the
“History” section, you may find a brief description of the
actual amendment. If you see “(Adj. Sess.)”, the year the
bill was passed was one year after the year given; thus “amended
1969, No. 279 (Adj. Sess.), sec 9” means the VSA section
you’re looking at was amended in 1970 in § 9 of Act 279.
From there you need to look at
the volume of “Laws of Vermont” arranged by the act number,
to find the Senate and/of House bill number. You can also find the
final text of your bill there, in order to more precisely determine
what the amendment consisted of.
Using the bill number, go to
the Senate and House Journals, in the same section of the State Law
Library (sic). At the back of the Journals, just before the general
index, there is a listing of Senate and House bills. There you will
find a very cryptic description of what happened to the bill in the two
Houses, sometimes including referrals to committees. The page numbers
given in that cryptic description are the pages in the volume
you’re working with on which the actions are described in more
detail. In particular, you may need to go to those pages to find out
exactly what committees the bill was referred to. Sometimes the
committee assignments are in the cryptic description, sometimes not.
According to Paul Donovan, the State Law Librarian (sic), the journals
themselves virtually never contain anything of substance: “The
only thing inthem, aside from the actions taken by the houses, are
humorous poems and eulogies.”
Armed with the year, bill
number and committee assignments, call (828-2231) or go to the
Legislative Council’s office. This is in the back (northwest, I
think) corner of the statehouse on the main floor. There, someone will
be able to tell you whether or not there is any record of committee
hearings on your bill. Transcripts and reel-to-reel tapes are readily
available for viewing or listening at the Legislative Council’s
office or at Public Records in Middlesex. Transcripts are not made
anymore except at the request of the Committee chair. The Legislative
Council’s office keeps everything through the current and
previous session and the rest is in Middlesex. Anything taped since
1989 is on cassette tape which has to bo listened to in the Legislative
Council’s office. Consequently, if you have a hearing from 1989
or 1990, that has not been transcribed, you will have to listen to it
in the Legislative Council’s office and that will not be possible
for a day or more after the request has been made. Anything that exists
before that is available in Middlesex, anything after in the
Legislative Council’s office. I guess the moral is call ahead.
The records of the clerks of
the committee are amother possible source of information. They are
contained in the state archives, in the Secretary of State’s
office, in the Redstone Building. It’s located on the road to
Middlesex; head north on Bailey Avenue, and take a left towards
Middlesex. Redstone is a block or so up the hill. The information might
get from clerks notes is very erratic; some take a lot of notes, some
almost none. The minutes may or may not contain any reference to your
bill, and may or may not be in numerical order, and may or may not tell
you the dates on which the bill was considered, to facilitate your
pawing through the notes themselves.
A final possible source of
information are the “manuscript bill files”. These are the
notes of the Legislative Council’s office taken on an individual
bill. To get them, you need to call the Legislative Council’s
office at 828-2231. They will have the file shipped from Middlesex, and
then will have an attorney reviewed (sic) it to take out any
“work product” that they don’t want to have available
for general consumption. An archivist at Redstone told me that
generally they aren’t too concerned about old bill, but they do
tend to take out more on recent bills. The process of getting
manuscript bill files from Middlesex can take several days, and
you’ll have to review the file in the Legislative Council’s
office in Montpelier.
Hope this is helpful. Everyone is very nice, but the whole system is incredibly cumbersome. On the older bills, you’re (sic)
chances of finding anything are slimmer than more recent ones, but who
knows when you might find the gem you are looking for. (sic) Good luck!
[postscript omitted]
A note on those
abbreviations: VS=Vermont Statutes of 1947, PL=Public Laws of Vermont
(1933), GL=General Laws of Vermont (1917), PL=Public Statutes of
Vermont (1906), VS=Vermont Statutes (1894), RL=Revised Laws (1880),
GS=General Statutes (1862), CS=Compiled Statutes (1858), VS=Vermont
Revised Statutes (1839).
