Sheriff and municipal attorney tell committee repeated disruptions are shutting down town business; lawmakers weigh legal limits

Sheriff David Fox and municipal attorney Sarah Buxton told the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee that repeated disruptions by the same individuals have forced some small towns to change operations, pay for law enforcement presence at meetings, and in some cases close town offices to walk‑in business.

“Where we run into, where we’re contacted to attend meetings because they have people that are disruptive,” Sheriff David Fox said, describing repeated calls to provide a law‑enforcement presence at public meetings. He told the committee that the presence of deputies is sometimes a deterrent but that the same individuals often return and continue disruptive conduct.

Sarah Buxton, a former state representative who is a municipal attorney and a select‑board member in Mendon, said the town had closed its office to the public and now operates by appointment because of threatening behavior. Buxton told the committee Mendon has a $60,000 contract with the Rutland County Sheriff’s Office to provide coverage and that the town now requires law‑enforcement presence for some meetings. “When we closed down our town clerk, closed down our office, we lost our town clerk,” Buxton said, and described repeated disruptions that led the town to adopt new rules limiting public access to buildings until law enforcement is present.

Committee members discussed remedies. Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, outlined the legal constraints: the Vermont Constitution and federal First Amendment protections make it difficult to block an individual from contacting elected officials in their official capacity, he said, and criminal or civil liability generally applies only once conduct crosses into harassment, stalking, or similar offenses. “There’s very few ways to block an individual member of the public from directly contacting you in your capacity as a governmental officer,” Anderson said, while noting that when conduct becomes threatening or harassing it may be subject to separate criminal enforcement.

Buxton and Sheriff Fox described practical consequences: towns running by appointment, public meetings adjourned until deputies arrive, and volunteers resigning because they do not want to face repeated harassment. Buxton suggested municipalities adopt clear rules of conduct and cooling‑off measures such as temporary virtual‑only participation for individuals who are removed under adopted rules. “If a person is so disruptive and they are found to be so under already adopted…municipal rules, they could be asked to participate virtually for 30, 60, or whatever days,” Buxton said.

Some committee members expressed reluctance to curtail public rights. One lawmaker noted the tension between preventing disruption and preserving free expression, and cautioned against drafting overly broad limits that could ensnare legitimate petitioning and news‑gathering. The committee heard examples of towns that now require deputies at meetings as a contracted service and that have experienced difficulty filling board seats after sustained harassment.

No statutory change was adopted at the meeting. Committee members asked for additional research, including examples from other states (committee members referenced California’s Brown Act as an illustrative model), and signaled they might hold the bill longer to consider a separate, more focused approach to vexatious behavior and public‑meeting management.