The Rutland City Charter is clear: the Board of Aldermen (BOA) is the governing body responsible for overseeing municipal finances, approving city contracts, and ensuring taxpayer money is spent responsibly. The mayor’s role is to execute policies and decisions made by the BOA—not to independently negotiate and alter financial agreements.
Yet, key decisions in Rutland today suggest a significant departure from this structure..
Rutland Forward PAC has gained control of key positions—most noticeably in the relationship between Mayor Mike Doenges and the BOA majority. Despite the legal responsibility of the BOA to vet and oversee contracts, members of Rutland Forward’s bloc—Aldermen Michael Talbott, Anna Tadio, Kiana McClure, Carrie Savage, and John McCann—have instead enabled the administration to bypass normal legislative review.
🚨 The clearest example? The $7.1 million contract with Johnson Controls (JCI).
📌 The JCI Contract: Signed Without Real Oversight
When the BOA voted on the JCI contract, members Heck, Davis, Gillam, and even the City Treasurer asked for more time to review the agreement—an entirely reasonable request for a deal committing Rutland taxpayers to millions over the next 20 years. Their request was ignored as the Rutland Forward bloc pushed the contract through, giving Mayor Doenges the authority to sign it.
But here’s the problem:
✔ The BOA never received the final, fully executed contract to review before voting.
✔ The BOA never reviewed the full financial obligations associated with the deal.
✔ Neither Doenges nor the BOA knew if the city had secured the necessary $500,000 MERP grant before authorizing the contract.
✔ The BOA was never told that, without the grant, the contract would need to be canceled and/or renegotiated.
🚨 This reflects a failure of financial due diligence. And yet, it gets worse.
📌 The BOA Didn’t Just Ignore Concerns About the Contract—They Ignored Concerns About the Financing, Too
When the time came to approve the $4.9 million ($7.1 million with interest) TD Bank financing for the JCI contract, Aldermen Heck, Davis, and Gillam AGAIN voted NO. Their reason?
✔ They still had unanswered questions about the project’s total cost and financial risks.
✔ They weren’t convinced that the board had a full understanding of what the contract obligated the city to.
✔ They refused to approve financing for a project that hadn’t been properly vetted.
“I don’t think there is a really great understanding of all the things that are in this proposal… I don’t feel I got my questions answered, so I don’t feel that I’ll support this financing either.”
🚨 Despite these valid concerns, the Rutland Forward-aligned majority voted to approve the financing anyway, effectively locking the city into a multi-million-dollar debt without a full financial breakdown.
📌 The BOA’s Role Was Reduced to a Formality
Normally, once a contract is signed, the BOA should be overseeing its execution, ensuring that financial commitments align with the city’s budget. Instead, what we see is a total role reversal:
🚨 According to all reviewed minutes and transcripts from 2023-2025, here’s what’s actually happening:
✔ Mayor Doenges and his administration have been actively renegotiating the contract with limited details shared with the board.
✔ Key financial terms are still being worked out—despite the contract already being signed.
✔ The BOA was formally asked to pause financing on December 2, a full two months after the contract had been signed.
✔ The BOA has functionally become a rubber stamp for decisions made outside of full public review.
🚨 So, the question becomes: If the BOA never received the full contract before voting, and if the mayor is renegotiating its terms, what exactly was the BOA majority approving in the first place?
The answer? It appears the BOA majority approved the contract without fully understanding its financial impact.
📌 The City Attorney’s Email: More Contradictions
As part of an exhaustive review of BOA minutes, Finance Committee transcripts, and city documents, FYIVT reached out to City Attorney Megan LaChance. Some of her responses only add to the contradictions in how this contract was handled.
📌 First Contradiction: The Contract Was ‘Discussed in Public Meetings’
“City Attorney Megan LaChance stated that ‘this contract has been discussed in both committee meetings and at meetings of the full Board. These meetings are open to the public, and the public is allowed to speak and engage with Board members at these meetings.’
However, a thorough review of meeting minutes and transcripts from 2023-2025 reveals no meaningful discussion of the actual contract terms before its approval. While the word ‘contract’ appears in passing conversations, there was never a structured discussion of the agreement’s financial implications, obligations, or risks. Despite repeated claims that the contract was thoroughly vetted in public meetings, board members were never given the full document to review before the vote, and taxpayers had no real opportunity for input.“
📌 Second Contradiction: The ‘Revenue Neutral’ Claim vs. Reality
“LaChance also stated: ‘It is difficult to say at this point how exactly the budget will be affected since the scope, estimated total cost, and financing are not yet complete. The City is trying to keep the financial impact of the project on the citizens to a minimum.’
This directly contradicts the administration’s and Rutland Forward board members’ biggest justification for bypassing a public vote: they claimed the deal would be revenue neutral and even generate surplus cash at the end. If the city still doesn’t know the financial impact, how was the public repeatedly assured there was no risk? If the **scope, cost, and financing are ‘not yet complete,’ what exactly was the BOA approving when they moved the contract forward?”
📌 Can a BOA Majority Vote Away the Power of the Board?
This isn’t just about the JCI contract—this is about whether a political faction can effectively rewrite how Rutland’s government functions without rewriting the charter.
✔ The BOA has a legal obligation to oversee city contracts and finances.
✔ The mayor is not supposed to act as the BOA’s financial decision-maker.
✔ Yet, the BOA majority has essentially ceded its power to the mayor, functioning as a rubber stamp instead of a governing body.
🚨 And here’s the real danger: If a BOA majority is willing to forgo thorough financial oversight, what stops a future administration from doing the same?
This is no longer just a policy debate—this is a structural failure of city governance.
📌 The Very People Who Created This Mess Want . . . Your Vote?
🚨 In the private sector, this level of financial mismanagement would get a CEO fired.
✔ They signed a $7.1 million contract without verifying if they had the money to pay for it.
✔ They didn’t tell the BOA that without the grant, the deal wouldn’t work.
✔ The BOA got to find out that the deal wasn’t financially sound after the fact.
✔ They’ve spent the past few months scrambling behind closed doors to fix a disaster of their own making.
✔ And now, instead of owning up to their failures, they’re asking for more power in the next election.
🚨 If the Rutland Forward-controlled BOA were a Board of Directors, their failure to exercise proper oversight would be considered a major governance failure. Instead, they’re not only allowing the mayor to operate this way but are actively enabling it.
📌 If Rutland residents don’t hold them accountable, who will?
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #RutlandVT #VermontPolitics #FiscalResponsibility
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