Mayor’s office calls Board vote invalid after Peters accepts offer
The effort to reinstate Recreation Superintendent Kim Peters took another unexpected turn this week after the Rutland Board of Aldermen voted 7–3 to return Peters to her position — only to have the mayor’s office subsequently block the move and declare the vote invalid.
The sequence of events began Monday night when Alderman Paul Clifford introduced a motion during the Board’s regular meeting to appoint Peters under Section 15.4(b) of the city charter. That provision allows the Board to appoint an officer by a seven-vote majority if the mayor fails to make an appointment within 90 days. Mayor Doenges had failed to provide an appointee within that timeframe, which allowed the Board to move forward with the vote.
The motion was debated, properly seconded, and after a required vote to suspend the rules — which passed unanimously — the Board held a roll call vote. The appointment passed 7–3, with the required supermajority.
City Blocks Return, Calls Vote “Invalid”
According to a person familiar with the situation, Kim Peters’ acceptance email was sent to the city at around 3:45 p.m. At 4:00 p.m., City Attorney Megan LaChance responded by email, stating that the Board’s vote was invalid, claiming “proper procedure was not followed” and that the invitation to return lacked proper documentation.
Three hours later, at 7:00 p.m., Mayor Michael Doenges emailed Peters stating that her return to work was being scheduled for this Friday, June 20, at 8:00 a.m. — an apparent contradiction to the earlier invalidation notice from Lachance.
The following day, Wednesday, Peters emailed the mayor’s office at 3:45 p.m. to request the agenda for her meeting with the mayor. At 4:00 p.m., LaChance emailed Peters again, stating that she was “not officially reappointed” and that her administrative leave would continue.
FYIVT reached out to Kim Peters on Wednesday. Peters confirmed that she had formally notified the city on Tuesday that she was accepting the Board’s offer to return.
As of this writing, Peters has still not been permitted to speak directly to the Board regarding her status.
The exact position of the mayor’s office remains unclear. While Mayor Doenges was likely aware of LaChance’s objections before sending the 7:03 p.m. email, sources suggest he may later claim he was unaware of the legal concerns at that time.
Board Followed Proper Procedure
The Monday vote itself appears on firm legal ground. The Board followed a proper procedure: using the “Miscellaneous Motions” portion of the agenda, moving to suspend the rules as required for un-warned items, and citing Section 15.4(b) of the charter. A roll call vote was conducted after a brief debate and procedural clarifications.
One challenge to the process came from Alderman Michael Talbot, who questioned whether the vote should have been conducted by secret ballot. Board President David Allaire, after recessing to review the rules, ruled correctly that the Board’s “secret ballot” requirement only applies when confirming nominations made by the mayor. Since this was a Board appointment under Section 15.4(b), no secret ballot was required.
(FYIVT is seeking clarification from the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office as to whether the Board’s secret ballot rule conflicts with Vermont’s Open Meeting Law.)
No other procedural objections were raised, either from board members or from LaChance, who was present at the meeting.
Background Check Policy Still Unwritten
The dispute over Peters’ role began in January when concerns were raised about background checks on Recreation Department volunteers. Public records confirm that Peters’ department had been conducting background checks in accordance with the city’s longstanding informal practice, which until this year had never required annual re-checks — a fact acknowledged by City Attorney Megan LaChance in correspondence with FYIVT earlier this spring. City payment records further show that Peters’ department consistently performed these checks for new hires and volunteers. What had not occurred — as is common in many municipal settings — was an annual re-check cycle, which had never been formalized in city policy. Still.
Recognizing this gap, Alderman Clifford moved in April to refer the issue to the HR Committee for the development of a formal background check policy. That motion passed. However, to date, the HR Committee — chaired by Alderwoman Kiana McClure — has not met or acted on that directive. Three months after Peters was placed on leave, the city still has no formal background check policy in place.
Personal Toll and Unresolved Tensions
Supporters of Peters argue that she has been unfairly vilified. Her department had been running checks when others had not, and she was operating in the absence of clear citywide direction. Internal emails show that HR was looking to her for guidance on background check processes. The fact that no policy has been produced since underscores the political nature of the controversy.
Sources familiar with the situation tell FYIVT that Peters — who has served without a disciplinary record and was previously praised by city officials — has been deeply affected by the long suspension and public attacks on her professional integrity.
What Comes Next?
Monday’s vote was an attempt to resolve the issue. Clifford’s motion included language allowing Peters seven calendar days to respond, acknowledging that she had not been consulted in advance.
“This is not about sides,” Alderman Matt Whitcomb said during debate. “I think the truth is somewhere in the middle… but the community clearly wants resolution.”
What comes next remains uncertain. The Board’s vote under the charter appears valid. The city’s claim of an “invalid” vote does not appear supported by the charter or by the Board’s own Rules of Order. Whether the mayor intends to recognize the vote or continue to block Peters’ return remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, with summer programs underway, Recreation leadership remains in limbo, and the city remains without an official background check policy — the very issue that triggered the entire controversy in the first place.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #rutlandvt #localpolitics #fyiinvestigates
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!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply