MONTPELIER — The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) has taken a proactive step to safeguard the state’s ecosystems from the threat of invasive plant species.

Recognizing the significant risks posed by non-native invasive plants and utilizing existing statutory authority, Vermont Agriculture Secretary Anson Tebbetts has declared eight new plant species as plant pests. This list includes Kudzu, Mile-a-Minute, Japanese Stiltgrass, Porcelain Berry, Wineberry, Waterwheel, Water Hyacinth and Water Soldier. These designated plant species are not native to Vermont and are said to present an ecological and/or economic threat to Vermont.

Non-native invasive plant species are capable of being introduced into Vermont by humans either intentionally, or unintentionally. The designation of these species as plant pests enables VAAFM to regulate their human aided movement within the state. Individuals or entities wishing to engage in activities such as selling, transporting, or moving these plant pests within the state will now be required to obtain a permit from the Secretary of Agriculture Food and Markets. This permit will ensure that such activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes the risk of introduction or spread of these invasive plants, according to a news release.

The selection of these eight new plant species was made in consultation with Vermont state government partners including the Vermont Departments of Forests, Parks and Recreation, the Departments of Environmental Conservation, and Fish and Wildlife at the Agency of Natural Resources.

For more images and plant information for this designation, visit: Vtinvasives.org/plantpestS or contact Emilie Inoue, 802-505-0217, Emilie.Inoue@vermont.gov

More than 40 years after some Vermont children waiting for a school bus discovered a dead baby off the side of the road, state police have announced that they found the infant’s parents and that no charges will be filed. The deceased infant was found in Northfield on April 1, 1982, per the AP. Investigators determined that the deceased baby was a recently born boy, but his identity was unknown and an autopsy was unable to determine the cause of death. Evidentiary DNA testing was not available at the time and the case remained unresolved, police said.

In 2020, state police worked with a DNA company to do a genealogical analysis, with the work funded by donations. In 2021, the company provided possible names of the baby’s biological mother and father, who had ties to the Northfield area in 1982.

• The father: Vermont State Police said they contacted the individuals at their home in Maine and obtained DNA from them, which confirmed they were the parents. The father told police he left Vermont for an extended period in 1982 and did not know about the pregnancy or disposal of the deceased baby.
• The mother: She admitted that she unlawfully disposed of the deceased infant. She said she did not know she was pregnant and did not have any symptoms until she began to feel abdominal pain. She labored alone for several hours and lost consciousness, she told police. She said when she came to, she realized she had delivered a baby but the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck and he did not survive. She said she planned to find a spot in the woods to bury him, but while walking in the woods she thought she heard voices and got scared. She slipped and the baby fell from her arms and she ran, police said.
• No charges: State police met with the county prosecutor about the case, who determined that charges of murder were unwarranted. Charges related to the unauthorized disposal of a dead body are beyond the statute of limitations.

(More cold cases stories.)

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — A Vermont man who lost his job after he said a random drug test showed he had used medical marijuana off duty for chronic pain has appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court saying he should not have been denied a portion of his state unemployment benefits.

Ivo Skoric, 59, representing himself, told the justices Wednesday that he is legally prescribed the medical cannabis by a doctor and his work performance is excellent and not impacted by the medicine. Yet, he said, in January 2023 he was terminated from his job at the Marble Valley Regional Transit District in Rutland for misconduct after a drug test. He said his job was to clean and fuel buses, and he drove them into and out of the garage onto a lot. The misconduct disqualified him from the benefits, according to the state.

“As a medical cannabis patient in Vermont to treat disabling conditions under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act disability provisions, I should be protected by state agencies. I should not be disqualified from receiving unemployment,” Skoric said.

A lawyer for the ACLU of Vermont, also representing Criminal Justice Reform, and Disability Rights Vermont, also argued that the benefits should not be denied.

Skoric had appealed to the Vermont Employment Security Board after he was found to be ineligible for state unemployment benefits for the weeks ending January 14, 2023, through February 18, 2023, and his maximum benefit amount was capped at 23 times his weekly benefit, according to the board.

In September 2023, the board agreed with an administrative law judge saying Skoric engaged in conduct prohibited by the employer’s drug and alcohol policy, “exposing him to discipline including termination of his employment,” and that because he was discharged for misconduct he was disqualified from those benefits.

The board wrote that it recognizes that Skoric engaged in conduct that is legal in Vermont and that he had “a legitimate and compelling reason to use medical cannabis for treatment.”

But “employers may set workplace policies that prohibit otherwise legal behavior,” the board wrote, saying that it agreed with the administrative judge that the minimum disqualification is appropriate.

The board later declined Skoric’s request for a declaratory ruling on whether the misconduct disqualification provision applied to the off-duty use of medical cannabis, which he asked the state Supreme Court to review.

Jared Adler, a lawyer representing the Vermont Department of Labor, said the court should affirm the board’s decision because he was discharged for misconduct for violating an acknowledged workplace safety policy and because “Vermont’s drug code does not guarantee unemployment benefits to people who test positive during a random drug screening.”

When asked by a justice if there’s a distinction between consumption and impairment Adler said there is but “there’s no clean way” for an employer to distinguish between consumption and impairment in the case of cannabis because, unlike other drugs, it can exist for an extended period of time in an individual’s system after consuming it. Skoric also said that even though he had used the medical cannabis off-duty, it can show up days later in someone’s system, which makes the testing meaningless.

There’s a balancing test for trying to protect both the public and an employer’s need to conform their policies with federal law, Adler said. Skoric acknowledged his employer received up to 60% of their funding for their business from federal grants, Alder said.

So it was extremely important to ensure that the employer adhere to these federal rules and not risk losing that revenue, Adler said.

Skoric said his position is that “off-duty use of cannabis for state-sanctioned medical purposes cannot and should not be qualified as misconduct by the state.”

“I should not have to choose between state benefits and the medical care (the) state granted me to use,” he said. “I should never be put in that impossible position to choose between benefits and the legal medicine I use.”