Rutland: The Animated Series Continues . . .
In recent days, a flurry of commentary and a formal complaint have surrounded the April 28 meeting of the Rutland City Recreation Committee, during which members unanimously passed a motion recommending that Mayor Mike Doenges reconsider his decision not to reappoint longtime Recreation Superintendent Kim Peters. The complaint, filed by Alderman Michael Talbott, alleges that the committee violated Vermont’s Open Meeting Law by taking “action on a substantive matter not included on the agenda.”
But a close examination of the facts, the governing rules, and the city’s own past practices makes it clear: this isn’t a case of procedural wrongdoing — it’s a case of selective outrage. And while political energy is spent bickering over agendas and motions, the Rec Department is unraveling in plain sight.
What Actually Happened
The Recreation Committee met to discuss “Recreation Department Issues In Committee.” According to the audio recording of the meeting — reviewed and transcribed by FYIVT — the committee first addressed the city’s summer programming shortages, including staffing gaps and certification delays. From that discussion emerged a motion, introduced by Alderman Matt Whitcomb, to recommend that the mayor reconsider his decision to remove Peters. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was publicly warned. The agenda was posted. The public was allowed to attend. The topic — staffing in the Recreation Department — clearly fell within the listed agenda item. So where, exactly, is the violation?
What the Law Actually Says
Vermont’s Open Meeting Law, codified at 1 V.S.A. § 312, requires that agendas be posted ahead of meetings and reflect the general topics to be discussed. It does not require that each potential motion be listed verbatim. Nor does it bar committees from making recommendations.
In fact, the law explicitly allows agendas to be amended at the meeting — and the topic of Kim Peters, former department head, was clearly within the bounds of “Recreation Department Issues.”
While the Recreation Committee does not appear to meet on a fixed schedule, the April 28 meeting was properly warned in accordance with the Vermont Open Meeting Law: posted in two designated public places, posted online, and sent to committee members.
Do Committees Have the Right to Make Motions?
According to the Rutland Board of Aldermen’s own website:
That’s exactly what the Recreation Committee did. It deliberated and issued a non-binding recommendation — not a hiring, not a firing, not a contract. A recommendation.
Which brings us to the double standard.
The Environmental Sustainability Committee’s Multimillion-Dollar Motion
On September 11, 2024, the city’s Environmental Sustainability Committee held a meeting with the following agenda item: “Review of Johnson Controls; Performance Based Energy Contract & presentation. Possible Action – Referral to full Board for approval.”
During that meeting, the committee passed a formal motion recommending that the full Board approve a performance-based energy contract with Johnson Controls and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement — a motion that involved millions of taxpayer dollars and a long-term commitment.
Present at that meeting was none other than, then Board President, Alderman Michael Talbott. He made no objection. He filed no Open Meeting Law complaint. The agenda did not specify that a motion would be made. And unlike the Recreation Committee’s motion, this one had direct financial implications for Rutland taxpayers.
So why the procedural pearl-clutching now?
The Mayor’s Rationale: Hooked On A Feeling?
According to The Rutland Herald, Mayor Doenges justified his decision not to reappoint Peters by citing “notes” he took after a media inquiry, concluding that he “felt lied to.” No formal process. No hearing. Just a personal interpretation.
According to City Attorney Megan LaChance, there is no formal written policy governing background checks within the Recreation Department. In response to a public records request, she clarified that “the past practice of the Department was to follow (generally) the national best practices,” but this approach “was not written down.”
There is also no record of disciplinary action ever being issued against Peters.
Not policy violations. Not misconduct. Not even a warning in her file. Just a feeling.
And for that, Rutland’s summer programs — and the families who depend on them — are paying the price.
Meanwhile, the Real Crisis Grows
While Talbott’s complaint eats up oxygen, the Recreation Department is falling apart. According to committee chair Paul Clifford, only 17 of the 45 needed program directors have signed up to return. Lifeguard certification programs are in limbo. Summer camps may not run. More than $190,000 in program signups are at risk. Staff are confused, demoralized, and receiving little guidance from City Hall.
Doenges has said his team is “moving forward,” but moving forward without the confidence of staff or the trust of the community isn’t leadership. It’s damage control.
Final Thought
Transparency matters. So does process. But both should be applied evenly and fairly — not weaponized selectively when a committee dares to challenge a decision.
If Talbott believes that a motion to recommend reconsideration is illegal because it wasn’t spelled out on an agenda, then the Environmental Sustainability Committee’s motion to recommend a multimillion-dollar contract — without clear notice — is an even bigger violation. And if he doesn’t believe that, then this isn’t about the law.
It’s just about control.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #RutlandPolitics #OpenMeetingLaw #RecreationDepartment
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!
Leave a Reply