This episode continues with the usual cast of city officials, certain elected board members, and the city attorney once again attempting to rewrite history after the fact — while quietly hoping the public won’t read the actual rules.

At the center of the staged controversy: the Board of Aldermen’s 7-3 vote to reappoint long-time Recreation Superintendent Kim Peters, after the Mayor declined to reappoint her and left the position unfilled for more than 90 days — triggering the Board’s right to act under the City Charter.

Following the vote, we’ve seen public statements from Mayor Doenges, City Attorney Lachance, and Alderman Michael Talbott alleging “rule violations,” attempting to invalidate the vote. So what’s the truth?

What Rules Were Allegedly Violated?

Talbott claims:
👉 “The action was not warned, meaning it should have gone to committee.”

What the actual rules say:

• Board Rule 28 allows the Board to suspend the rules with a ¾ vote.
• The Board did so — unanimously — before taking up the motion.
• No rule requires an un-warned item to “go to committee” if the rules are suspended.
• Robert’s Rules backs this fully — suspending the rules is the accepted legal process.
• Talbott himself voted to suspend the rules and raised no objection at the time.

We reached out to Alderman Talbott on Facebook for clarification — asking him to cite which specific rule he was referring to. He declined to respond.

LaChance claims:
👉 The vote is invalid because Board President Allaire “should not have voted.”

What the actual rules say:

• The Charter allows the Board to make appointments after 90 days.
• The motion was a Board-originated motion — not a mayoral nomination.
• Board Rule 6 does limit the President’s vote to tie-breaks and veto questions — so technically, President Allaire should not have voted on this motion.
• During the meeting — as shown in the transcript — the Board conferred with the Parliamentarian (the City Attorney). No objection was raised by the Parliamentarian. No Board member — including Alderman Talbott — raised a point of order. The vote was recorded and closed.
• Under Robert’s Rules and Board practice, if no point of order is raised at the time, and the Parliamentarian permits the action to proceed, it cannot later be retroactively invalidated by memo — this creates a legal estoppel problem for the City.
• If the vote is to be overturned, it must now be done either by Board reconsideration or court action — not by the Mayor’s unilateral decision.

(Legal note: “Estoppel” means the City can’t reverse an action they allowed to happen without objection — you can’t “unring the bell” after the fact.)

If this was a fatal rule violation, why didn’t the Parliamentarian (the City Attorney herself) say so during the meeting — especially after having been conferred with?

LaChance further claims:
👉 The chair did not restate the motion, violating Robert’s Rules.

What the actual rules say:

• Robert’s recommends restating motions — but failure to restate does not invalidate the vote.
• In this case, the motion was clearly and fully stated twice on the record by Alderman Clifford — both the original motion and the full restatement when requested by the chair.
• The chair then gave a conversational summary before the roll call — which is consistent with standard practice after a motion has been properly stated.
• No Board member raised a point of order or objected to the restatement at any time.
• By LaChance’s own memo, this is a procedural practice the Board has followed consistently for decades.

Being this is now the new standard, FYIVT will be reviewing prior BOA and subcommittee meetings to determine what other past votes may now need to be canceled and redone.

☕️ Cheaper than a maple latte. More satisfying than cable news. Support real Vermont journalism for $5/month. ☕️

Legal Exposure Created by the Mayor’s Actions

The Mayor’s public statements and refusal to implement the lawful Board vote are now placing the City of Rutland at serious legal risk. Based on review of Vermont statutes, the City Charter, Board Rules, and case law, here is the real exposure:

✅ Wrongful denial of lawful employment

• Certainty: High
• The Board lawfully reappointed Peters by valid vote.
• The Mayor has no Charter authority to unilaterally block her from assuming her post.

✅ Violation of public employee due process rights

• Certainty: High
• Once reappointed, Peters cannot be denied employment or pay without due process.
• The Mayor’s unilateral refusal to seat her violates these rights.

✅ Retaliation and hostile work environment risk (21 V.S.A. § 495 – VFEPA)

• Certainty: Moderate to High
• The pattern of public statements scapegoating Peters, combined with denial of her post, creates a substantial risk of retaliation claims.

✅ Exceeding authority under the City Charter

• Certainty: 100%
• The Mayor’s claim that he can “invalidate” a lawful Board vote by memo has no support in the Charter, Board Rules, or Vermont law.
• The Mayor is now acting outside his legal authority.

Broader Pattern
These legal exposures are not isolated. They reflect a broader failure of leadership at City Hall:

• A total lack of written policy
• A failure of basic management and oversight
• A pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior
• An alarming willingness by some officials to disregard lawfully executed Board actions

Who Is Really Accountable Here?

Mayor Doenges continues to insist publicly that “children’s safety” was at stake. If this was truly such a serious failing — where is the written background check policy today?

City leadership and HR failed to implement clear procedures for years, while a department head followed long-standing practice without updated guidance — and when the gap was finally noticed, the full weight of blame was dropped on her alone. (That tactic is about as ugly as it gets — and the public should not tolerate it.)

Let’s be clear:

• The City still has no formal background check policy.
• No apology has been issued for management’s failure of oversight.
• The Mayor and HR leadership have accepted no responsibility and have bore no consequences — despite being the ones elected and hired to manage city operations.

If “accountability matters,” as Talbott likes to say — it should begin at the top.

Conclusion

At every step, the procedural claims now being raised are post-facto spin. The Board acted properly under its rules and Charter authority — with no valid point of order raised at the time. The vote remains lawful unless overturned by a court.

More importantly, Rutland citizens deserve an honest accounting of who failed here: it was not the department head alone — it was a systemic failure of leadership and management. Those truly responsible still occupy their offices today.

At FYIVT, we try to keep our reporting fact-based — but this level of corporatist gamesmanship and political cowardice deserves to be called out. This whole chain of ugliness stemmed from an utter lack of leadership and the effort of elected officials to conduct a sleight-of-hand, trying to shift responsibility and blame onto one individual to protect their own skins. It is shameful and beneath the value of the positions to which they were elected.

Stay tuned for Season 1, Episode 5.

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 #robertsrules #localgovernment #vermontnews

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!