Resident alleges Selectboard Open Meeting Law violations, board agrees to seek legal counsel

Ken Hall raised multiple concerns during public comment about the Selectboard's compliance with Vermont's Open Meeting Law over roughly the past six months. Hall said three executive sessions (Oct. 14, Oct. 28 and Nov. 11) included real‑estate discussions not on posted agendas, and alleged a Nov. 5 special meeting warned for an employee evaluation later added a real‑estate discussion after posting. He also told the board that, in one instance, the board exited an employee‑evaluation executive session and took action on driveway access letters outside the stated purpose.

Hall also questioned financial transparency: he said the board approved a $230,000 expenditure in December without a prior public resolution, and that at Town Meeting voters were later asked to approve a loan for funds that Hall said had already been spent. He further raised a March 10 item in which the board signed a letter confirming the town could cover a $670,000 grant funding gap without an identified source of funds. Hall challenged the validity of a March 10 vote he described as 2–1 with three members present, citing a statute he said requires a majority of the full five‑member board (three votes) for binding action.

Chair Denis Benson responded that the Selectboard had been operating under Roberts Rules, which allow a majority of those present to act when a quorum is present, but he acknowledged a potential conflict with state statute and the issue of voting thresholds. GNAT‑TV participant Kim Seymour said she understood decisions could be made based on a quorum and recommended consulting legal counsel. The Selectboard agreed to seek legal guidance on quorum and voting requirements moving forward.

The meeting minutes record the matters Hall raised and the board's decision to consult counsel; they do not record a formal response beyond Benson's and Seymour's comments nor the outcome of any subsequent legal review.