Rutland voters unknowingly approved the wrong city budget during March’s Town Meeting Day election, and city officials only discovered the error five months later, in early July. Instead of the $25.8 million budget approved by the Board of Aldermen in December, the ballot listed Mayor Michael Doenges’ original $26.6 million proposal—a discrepancy of more than $807,000.

The mistake was confirmed in a July 9 memo from the Mayor’s Office, which acknowledged the higher figure had been placed on the ballot and approved by voters. City Treasurer Mary Markowski discovered the error while preparing for discussions about the upcoming fiscal year tax rate, set for deliberation at the Board’s special meeting on July 17.

According to city officials, the ballot error originated when the Clerk’s Office prepared the Town Meeting warning and ballot. Vermont law places that responsibility on the city clerk. But the mistake was never caught in any oversight process before the warning was published or the election held. The Board of Aldermen was not given an opportunity to review the draft ballot prior to the warning, as was customary in the past.

Mayor Doenges told the Board in his memo that the City Clerk’s Office could not determine how the mistake happened. “There’s conjecture but nothing factual,” the mayor wrote. He added that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) had advised him the vote remained legally valid because the Town Meeting warning and ballot matched, despite the wrong inflated number being presented.

Good News for Taxpayers? Well . . .

Despite the mistake, Rutland residents are not automatically on the hook for higher taxes. Under the city charter and Vermont law, voter approval grants the city authority to collect and spend up to the approved amount, but it does not obligate the Board of Aldermen to levy taxes for the full figure.

The Board can, and has in the past, set tax rates lower than the voter-approved budget by adjusting spending at its final rate-setting meeting. Treasurer Markowski is currently developing options that would allow the Board to set a tax rate aligned with the $25.8 million figure initially passed in December—a budget the 2024 Board approved unanimously, with votes from Kiana McClure, Anna Tadio, and Michael Talbott.

But in a quote to the Rutland Herald, Doenges hinted at a different approach: “The good news is that the city will not be underfunded in the coming fiscal year. The bad news is, it will complicate the setting of the tax rate when the Board meets for that purpose next week.”

Now the question becomes: will the Rutland Forward board members, joined by newcomer Carrie Savage, honor the duly authorized budget of $25.8 million—or will they, and Doenges, take advantage of this “happy accident” to jack up the budget by more than $807,000 and increase the tax burden on Rutland residents?

📜 A Charter Undone?

Beyond the immediate tax implications, the budget error exposes a troubling legal loophole. Under Vermont law, a budget article becomes binding as long as the Town Meeting warning matches the ballot—even if the warning itself contained an error or contradicted the City Charter.

Critics argue this elevates procedural precision over substantive legality. As one resident quipped, “So if someone accidentally warns an article to cut the mayor’s salary and it passes, does that mean he has to work for free?”

This flaw has profound implications for Rutland. The Board of Aldermen—the Charter’s designated fiscal authority—approved a $25.8 million budget. But due to a clerical mistake, voters saw and approved a $26.6 million figure the Board had rejected. Legally, the higher number now stands, creating a situation where an administrative oversight effectively overrode the legislative branch.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

🕵️ A Pattern of Oversight Lapses?

For some, the March budget error is more than a clerical mistake—it is the latest in what they see as a pattern of oversight failures at City Hall.

Earlier this year, the Rutland Herald reported the city was not conducting background checks for employees who interact with vulnerable populations. The mayor deflected responsibility onto the Recreation Department but did not direct the creation of a formal citywide background check policy. Months later, no such policy has been implemented. Still.

In a separate controversy, Doenges drew criticism when he suggested the Board’s vote to reinstate Recreation Director Kim Peters may have been invalid—an assertion some aldermen described as an attempt to undermine legislative authority.

Now, with the March budget discrepancy coming to light only in July, critics are asking whether the city’s chief executive officer is monitoring critical financial processes at all. “This was a ballot error, yes,” said one former city official familiar with the process. “But it also exposes a total lack of written policies or basic quality control procedures. It’s no way to run a city.”

📣 Citizens Demand Change

The situation has left some residents frustrated and calling for accountability. A Change.org petition titled “We the people are demanding the mayor of Rutland city to resign” has gathered over 580 signatures as of this week. The petition cites “repeated failures of oversight and accountability” as justification for the demand and urges Doenges to step down to allow the city to “restore trust in its leadership.”

If the mayor were to resign, the Rutland City Charter already provides a clear succession plan: the President of the Board of Aldermen automatically becomes acting mayor. In this case, that would mean former mayor David Allaire—who currently serves as Board President—would return to City Hall as interim chief executive until the next election or until the Board takes further action.

This provision underscores the seriousness of the petition’s demand and offers a glimpse of what a post-Doenges City Hall might look like, even temporarily.

💡 What’s Next?

The Board of Aldermen is scheduled to meet on July 17 to set the tax rate for the coming fiscal year. Whether they decide to align it with the original $25.8 million budget or adopt the higher $26.6 million figure approved on the ballot could significantly affect Rutland taxpayers.

For now, one thing is clear: while voters approved a higher budget, the Board is under no obligation to spend it all. And for many, that is the only comfort in what has become yet another chapter in a troubling pattern of municipal missteps.

Stay tuned for Season 1, Episode 6.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #RutlandVT #CityHallDrama #TaxpayerAlert

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!