[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6117083,"mediaKeyId","2730916-a393efa7cb2cd615335930f0ddd15d2c","parentId",2730916,"title","Amendment broadens privacy protection for public servants, swaps fines for injunctions; lawmakers debate enforceability","audioSeconds",1433,"startMs",845255,"endMs",2278815,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2730916-a393efa7cb2cd615335930f0ddd15d2c&start=845&end=2278","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2730916-a393efa7cb2cd615335930f0ddd15d2c/thumbnail_845255.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6117083/Vermont/Amendment-broadens-privacy-protection-for-public-servants-swaps-fines-for-injunctions-lawmakers-debate-enforceability","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6117083-ff0b4f3b0cd9dc3f659751da922a718a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485966&Signature=WUpMj9m0IFgeLLkuB~jO6tmwKP10jhnL748vO-eOZKJ2Paka7VKLA2--eAEP6n0rq9gBMpGWwoU1HL~kIWY6Yi4Clhg6Eu1KT4UDF-5Oa7~FfC4WZRv9rNQKXDNlCQl40AnZYWxuKumZfxh25S6Tg72GBsaqEKHDJEXHH4-iiJRKAO3uMJ3OCkX6i2eC9YZc6wTkV2u1WpuspZPhMVYwKoBiPWTp83-37eElTjTIGI~lp0vsi948AzkXDfu9fXMBYjmI1i9QWGf5IHii~MgVG4iX18zkO0sFyhX0bQv4-tm6RnfjYw1FlN9lKVs6m9vwprNV4tSPuvSU730DLVbJdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-22T00:35:36.62Z","article","An amendment to a pending data‑privacy bill that would expand protections for public servants and change enforcement from fines to court injunctions was presented to the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on March 21.

The amendment sponsor told the committee the changes ‘‘focus on immediate removal of dangerous information rather than prolonged litigation’’ and ‘‘prioritize compliance, not litigation.’’ The amendment would expand covered persons to include all government lawyers, jurors who served in the last 18 months and members of the General Assembly; it replaces the term “data broker” with “commercial entity” so enforcement applies to any business that publicly discloses sensitive personal information; and it subjects public agencies to the same removal requirements as private entities.

Key elements of the amendment

- Expanded coverage: The amendment adds categories of public servants (government lawyers, recent jurors, legislators) to address risks of retaliation tied to public duties.

- Scope: The bill language would apply to all commercial entities that publicly disclose protected information, not only to companies registered as data brokers.

- Enforcement: The amendment removes monetary damages and civil fines in favor of a legal injunction process; if a company or agency fails to comply with a court order, the court may award mandatory attorney’s fees and costs to the covered person.

- Process and reporting: The amendment requires a removal/redaction response within 15 days and directs the state court administrator to report annually on injunctions filed, granted, denied or appealed as well as violations and attorneys’ fees awarded. The definition of “disclose” would be modified to mean “publicly post or display.”

Committee questions and concerns

Committee members pressed the sponsor and staff counsel on several practical and legal points: how injunctions would be enforced against multibillion‑dollar, multinational technology companies; whether the attorney general’s office would have a role under consumer‑protection laws; and whether criminal enforcement mechanisms should be considered. One member asked what remedies a court would have if a large company ignored an injunction; the sponsor and committee counsel said courts could enforce injunctions but acknowledged that the amendment removes direct statutory damages and relies on court processes.

Members also raised cost and access concerns for covered persons. The amendment eliminates an assignee provision that previously allowed third parties to bring claims, and members noted that individuals may face repeated filings if their information appears in multiple places across the internet. A member asked whether paid databases or results behind paywalls (for example, aggregator sites) would be covered; the sponsor deferred detailed legal interpretation to committee counsel but indicated the amendment intends to capture a broad range of public disclosures.

Other practical points discussed included the 15‑day removal period, the exception for information voluntarily and publicly disclosed by the covered person on or after July 1, 2025, and the need to coordinate education and technical support for municipalities, nonprofits and state agencies if the bill’s scope is expanded. Several members said they were concerned about enabling frivolous litigation and suggested adding additional guardrails such as cure periods and other limits the committee might consider.

Next steps

Committee members said they want additional time to compare the amended language against prior versions and to consult the attorney general’s office and other stakeholders, including municipal and nonprofit representatives, before acting. No formal committee vote on the amendment was recorded in the March 21 session.

Ending

The committee planned to resume floor business and to reconvene later to examine the language in detail and possible side‑by‑side comparisons of the bill text.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Commerce - 2025-03-21 - 8:45AM","oneSentenceSummary","An amendment presented March 21 to a pending data‑privacy bill would broaden coverage to more public servants and commercial entities, require redaction or removal within 15 days and shift enforcement from fines to court injunctions, committee members were told.","taxTitle","Commerce & Economic Development, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",36720,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6117087,"Lawmakers hear tech-center leaders’ concerns as committee reviews CTE governance",838,17725,856615,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2730916-a393efa7cb2cd615335930f0ddd15d2c&start=17&end=856","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2730916-a393efa7cb2cd615335930f0ddd15d2c/thumbnail_17725.jpg","/articles/6117087/Vermont/Lawmakers-hear-tech-center-leaders-concerns-as-committee-reviews-CTE-governance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6117087-89079ded6ef84ee9885e5655b662b1a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485966&Signature=ZNx3P~~hB7Blgp9Oq8JBGZzRWVX4Y1rotC6sYzWuY1UhKoMpczh7LeFDvKxJZWKugQ0GvC91vG3SzDi3wceRmIsCh-GD4D2rKPwKJdKcjh4KhT9ocx7ZbDGuKPjfWT4vZpZAtuKdITR4kVsECvL7FCnmPAwJHsgut42OA1Af4ILFAUkrVodoCkku5yHuSqA5S9B7N9a2EBZQGG7~5xfNXyEySsNiNVS8xIsAvB~bInNT1C60rYmObJAb9ozBtPH7F4b8toR9NLL~DP14gHj5obycpIXN6O7g1dybY6cMqjExdhc~nzqnAzItwkQ5Oc-XoollMMsovVmvCneWtgVvSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Helen Art Graves, a legislative intern, presented a report on career and technical education (CTE) governance to the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on March 21, outlining how four independent career-tech centers run their boards and operations and summarizing superintendents’ reactions to the governor’s K–12 and CTE reform proposals.

The report compiled interviews with superintendents and directors at multiple regional tech centers, including Southwest Tech, River Valley Tech Center, Central Vermont Career Center (CVCC) and the Patricia A. Hanover Career Center (PAHCC). Graves told the committee that each superintendent she spoke with “would much prefer that CTE governance be determined after they have been able to see what public education reform looks like in general,” and that many favored preserving local autonomy.

Why this matters: Center leaders said autonomy allows faster decisions on programming and funding and reduces bureaucracy, while the governor’s proposal — which some superintendents described as creating a supervisory role for the Agency of Education — could change how funds and authority flow to CTE programs.

Leaders’ concerns and capacity

Superintendents reported enrollment growth at several centers and uneven capacity across the state. River Valley Tech Center was described as “already ahead of last year's enrollment by 50%” during recruitment season, Graves told the committee; Central Vermont Career Center was said to be facing excess demand. PAHCC and Southwest Tech reported differing demand profiles: PAHCC was not described as overcapacity, while Southwest Tech reported no immediate demand concerns but emphasized the value of autonomy.

Funding and staffing

Speakers cautioned that recent and proposed funding changes are stressing programs. Graves summarized comments that the governor’s proposal would lower per‑student payments in a way that disadvantages CTE: “each school district receive 13,000 in funding if a student attends a regular public school, but only 5,000 if that student attends a CTE center,” a funding differential several directors said has created an adversarial relationship between sending districts and CTE centers. Committee testimony also reported that one superintendent said base funding decreased roughly 3% last year and that centers have already reduced staff; further cuts, directors warned, would likely force program reductions.

Operational issues and graduation requirements

Directors raised operational questions tied to consolidation and labor costs: Meg Hansinger (Southwest Tech) asked the committee to consider implications for medical insurance, collective bargaining and salaries if the state consolidated tech centers into a single district. Jody Emerson said differing graduation requirements among sending schools complicate students’ ability to access CTE; she suggested either CTE‑specific graduation rules or statewide graduation requirements so students can complete both graduation and CTE requirements.

Next steps and committee context

Graves told the committee directors have been meeting weekly and said they intend to send a letter to legislators with feedback on the proposal. Committee members said they had limited time for questions. The CTE discussion concluded before the committee moved to an amendment on a separate data-privacy bill; the committee planned further language review later in the day.

Ending

No formal policy vote was recorded during the session on March 21; the presentation served as informational input for committee members as they continue to consider K–12 and CTE reforms.","House Commerce & Economic Development Committee reviewed a student-to-school report on career and technical education governance. Tech-center leaders told legislators autonomy aids operations but expressed concerns about proposed K–12 reform, funding formulas and possible program cuts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Amendment broadens privacy protection for public servants, swaps fines for injunctions; lawmakers debate enforceability

Lawmakers hear tech-center leaders’ concerns as committee reviews CTE governance