Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board publishes attorney responses to open‑meeting complaints amid public allegations of hidden records
Summary
The Woodstock Select Board read and adopted attorney‑prepared responses rejecting two recent open‑meeting law complaints and noted limits to available statutory remedies, while residents publicly alleged withheld documents and improper transfers of town funds.
The Woodstock Select Board on June 16 read two attorney‑prepared statements responding to citizen complaints that a May meeting failed to comply with Vermont's open‑meeting law. The board concluded the law does not require notice of a unilateral resignation statement and said remedies sought by complainants exceeded the statute's scope.
Select board member (speaker 5) read the first response, asserting that "VSA 3 12 d . . . shall contain sufficient details concerning specific matters to be discussed by the public body," and that a unilateral resignation by a member was not a matter for board action and therefore did not require a separate agenda item. Later the board adopted the attorney statements in a vote after moving to waive attorney‑client privilege for the statements only.
Residents in the public‑comment period sharply challenged the board's legal conclusion. Nicholas Selden (speaker 3) urged new board members to investigate what he said was "financial misconduct," and told the board that the municipal manager and the former chair were "hiding things" and not responding to public‑record requests. "He's hiding documents," Selden said. He asked the board to "keep an open mind" as community members bring forward evidence.
Board members said their responses were limited by the law and the information before them. The board also shared an advisory that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) and its retained counsel are handling defense of an ongoing lawsuit, limiting public comment on litigation details. The board said any additional remedies or recovery of funds would require careful review and are not automatic under open‑meeting statutes.
The board moved and voted to accept the attorney statements and instructed that citizens who wish to comment may do so during future citizen comment periods. The board declined to add a separate agenda item to rehear the contested resignation statement, citing the attorney's interpretation of the open‑meeting law.
