Rutland: The Animated Series
Editor’s Note:
We typically do not confirm or deny the sources of our reporting. However, due to the sensitivity of this situation and the increasing pressure surrounding it, we believe it is important to state this clearly:
At no time, in any way, have we communicated with Recreation Superintendent Kim Peters. This reporting is based solely on official public records, city-supplied documents, and independent confirmations from unaffiliated individuals.
We make this statement out of concern that Ms. Peters could otherwise be unfairly targeted or further burdened by an administration already leveraging its legal apparatus to isolate and silence her.
A Policy Not Produced, But Allegedly Broken
When Mayor Mike Doenges published his recent commentary in the Rutland Herald, he framed his decision not to reappoint Recreation Superintendent Kim Peters as a principled stand about “trust,” “safety,” and “honesty.” But in the weeks that followed, the city’s handling of public records, procedural questions, and internal discipline has raised broader concerns about transparency and consistency.
On April 16, the Herald published a follow-up article based on documents it received via a public records request. The documents showed a flurry of background check requests submitted by the Recreation Department on January 8 — the same day Peters responded to a media inquiry. Included among the materials was a printout of a January 9 Herald article, marked with handwritten annotations, allegedly by Mayor Doenges. Two sections were labeled “Not Done” and “Procedure Not Followed.”
But so far, the city has not released — or referenced — the actual procedure that was supposedly violated.
A Curious Delay — And Who Was Really “Unavailable”
When a separate public records request was submitted asking for this onboarding policy, along with financial records of background check activity, the response from the city attorney stated:
“I do not have the other documents you requested readily available at this time… Some members of senior staff who may be the only ones with access to the documents you requested are currently out on leave, and so we will not be able to get you those documents until they return.”
That response was sent on April 18. Since then, independent confirmation has established that the city treasurer and the Human Resources director — the two most likely staffers to possess or access those documents — were both in the office and working throughout the week of April 15. The city attorney and town clerk, who were also involved in the response, were likewise available.
It is not known whether these were the specific “senior staff” referenced in the city’s reply. But if they were — and they were present — it raises a reasonable question: Why weren’t the documents provided? And if they weren’t the individuals with access, then who was?
The timing of the anticipated release also deserves scrutiny. The city stated it would fulfill the remaining records request by April 23 — two days after the next Board of Aldermen meeting on April 21.
Public Access for the Press — But Not the People
So far, neither the onboarding procedure nor the policy regarding background checks has been released to the public, despite those policies being central to the mayor’s explanation for removing a well-known and well-regarded department head.
Moreover, the city has yet to explain why it could provide annotated press clippings and background check spreadsheets to the Herald, but could not produce or reference any document outlining the policy or procedure that supposedly triggered Peters’ administrative leave.
A February 3 email from HR Director Ellen Coyle, included in the city’s records, shows that Peters had been advised to review background checks herself and escalate issues to HR only when something raised concern. That directive places the burden of discretionary review on the superintendent — but does not indicate that she violated a policy.
The city’s own employment application contains language that background checks “may” be conducted — not that they are mandatory for all volunteers. Without a formal policy, it remains unclear what standard the city is using to judge Peters’ conduct.
A Letter Meant to Silence
The city’s next move came on April 11, when a cease and desist letter was sent to Peters. (Read the letter here) The letter, authored by the city attorney, instructed Peters not to discuss the matter with other city employees — including members of the Board of Aldermen — and warned that further communication could result in “separation from employment.” While not an outright gag order, the letter creates a chilling effect on speech, and frames even basic workplace communication as a potential disciplinary issue.
Although the Herald appears to have spoken to Peters directly, no other media outlet — including this one — appears to have received any response or comment from her. It is not known whether she has been explicitly prohibited from speaking to the media, but the tone and scope of the city’s directive would likely cause any employee in her position to remain silent.
Leadership Promises vs. City Hall Reality
National best practices, including guidance from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), emphasize that background check procedures should be clearly documented, administered centrally, and communicated to staff. Disciplining an employee based on a policy that has not been provided, and may not have been clearly defined, places the burden on the individual without demonstrating institutional accountability.
The mayor’s own public statements now warrant renewed scrutiny:
“I will not compromise on honesty. I will not compromise on public safety. And I will not compromise the integrity of our city’s operations.”
But the city has not demonstrated transparency about the procedures it claims were broken, nor taken clear responsibility for maintaining or overseeing them. If public safety is a top priority, as the mayor claims, then why wasn’t there closer executive oversight of background check compliance — particularly by HR and the Mayor?
As the city’s chief executive, the mayor is ultimately responsible for ensuring that departmental policies are understood, implemented, and enforced. If background checks were being mishandled — or not requested in a timely manner — that failure should not rest solely on one department head. It speaks to a broader breakdown in internal coordination and raises concerns about the consistency of oversight in other departments as well.
“Appointing a department head is a statement that says: I trust this leader.”
So is electing a mayor. Residents may now ask if this is the style of leadership they expected — one that disciplines longtime employees under vague policies, withholds key information from the public, and threatens separation for speaking with elected officials.
“Leadership is not about perfection. It is about consistency, integrity, and the ability to lead through both success and adversity.”
On that front, Peters’ record shows not only strong leadership during the post-COVID rebuilding of community programs — but dedicated, adaptive work during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. She maintained essential services, adjusted programming under evolving public health guidance, and helped keep the department running while others were scaling back.
Whether the administration is demonstrating that same level of integrity and resilience now remains an open question.
As of this writing, the onboarding policy still has not been released. But one fact is now clear: the key individuals cited as unavailable were, in fact, on the job.
So again, the question remains:
The buck stops… where?
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #rutlandvt #publictrust #transparencymatters
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