(This article by Bob Audette was published in the Brattleboro Reformer on March 23, 2017.)
VERNON — The chairman of the Vernon Selectboard rebuked the members of the Vernon Voters Alliance for creating a “public spectacle,” by submitting a letter of complaint “of misconduct/corruption” to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
“Our complaint concerns the misuse of taxpayer monies by present and former elected town officials,” notes the letter.
Peggy Frost, a member of the Vernon Voters Alliance, told the board on Tuesday night that the members submitted the letter because they were concerned about how reimbursements were made to former Selectboard Chairwoman Patty O’Donnell for her legal defense against charges of obstruction of justice.
“Our intention in asking about this payment was not to have it public knowledge, but to have questions of our own answered,” said Frost.
“You could have had your questions answered by simply coming to the Selectboard or coming to (Town Administrator) Michelle (Pong) and looking back through the minutes instead of bringing in the Vermont State Police and starting an entire investigation,” responded Josh Unruh, the chairman of the Selectboard, who is also an employee of the Brattleboro Reformer.
On Sept. 20, 2014, a friend of O’Donnell’s was stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence. In the wake of the arrest, O’Donnell made repeated calls to sheriff’s personnel. The Windham County Sheriff’s Office conducted an investigation and on Sept. 22 submitted an affidavit in support of an obstruction of justice charge.
O’Donnell maintained that she had been calling into question the conduct of the arresting deputy, who drew a firearm after the driver allegedly failed to stop.
O’Donnell’s case went before a grand jury, which determined there was not enough evidence to indict her for obstruction.
Cindy Turnley, the town treasurer, told the Reformer a detective with the Vermont State Police was in her office on Monday, requesting copies of accounts payable warrants presented to the Vernon Selectboard in December 2015.
Turnley said one of those warrants included payment to former Selectboard Chairwoman Patty O’Donnell as reimbursement for $5,028.25 worth of legal fees she incurred in her defense against the obstruction of justice charge.
Turnley told the Reformer that initially, O’Donnell paid her legal expenses out of her own pocket in early March 2015. Later that same month, the Selectboard voted to reimburse O’Donnell but after a public outcry, O’Donnell paid the town back for the reimbursement. However, noted Turnley, in December 2015, she presented to the board an accounts payable warrant that included repayment to O’Donnell for the total amount, which the board approved.
Accounts payable warrants are routine; selectboards receive the warrants, which usually contain a number of items that need to be paid on behalf of the town. Boards vote on the warrants themselves, rather than on each item.
A review of a BCTV recording of the Vernon Selectboard’s Dec. 21, 2015, meeting, shows no discussion of the warrant presented to the board by Turnley, nor is anything noted in the minutes about the warrant, before the board approved it.
Unruh, who was a member of the board during that Dec. 21 meeting, told the Reformer that the town’s legal counsel cited Title 24 of Vermont State Statutes as the basis for repayment. “The Selectboard then decided to reimburse her because it was the right thing to do based on the statute,” said Unruh, adding, “It’s my opinion that the intention of the Vernon Voters Alliance in this case is to continue to defame Patty O’Donnell and I find that unacceptable.”
Prior to the beginning of Tuesday night’s regular board meeting, Unruh read a prepared statement as part of his chairman’s remarks. He noted that the payment to O’Donnell was for legal fees stemming from the obstruction of justice report presented by the Windham County Sherriff’s office.
“Those charges were thrown out of court by a grand jury due to a lack of evidence,” stated Unruh, who noted legal counsel had advised the board that repayment of O’Donnell’s legal fees “were 100 percent in the purview of the Select Board.”
“This attempt to defame Patty O’Donnell and the Select Board’s decision will once again be found to have no merit in my opinion at the end of this investigation,” said Unruh, reading from his prepared statement. “It’s unfortunate that this group continues to bring forth these false claims jamming up our legal system and taking up the time of state and local resources involved and expending unnecessary tax payer dollars. I hope in the future this group focuses its attention on the building of Vernon as a town and stops trying to bring division among us.”
Following Unruh’s statement, Janet Rasmussen, the vice chairwoman of the Vernon Planning Commission, said the Vernon Voters Alliance, in sending the letter to the AG’s Office, had “kicked mud” in the faces of all the people who have worked diligently to bring the town together.
“This town has done an amazing job of moving forward in the last couple of years,” said Rasmussen. “An enormous amount of hard work has gone into what everyone has done here … to have something like this happen by a group in this town, at this juncture, is not only a slap in the face to the board, but is a slap in the face to all of the people, and there are probably hundreds of them, who are working so hard to make this town a better place. … I think it’s deplorable.”
Frost told the board she and the other members of the Vernon Voters Alliance were not aware that their letter of complaint would result in a visit on Monday by a State Police detective and another visit on Tuesday, during which the State Police asked for copies of board meeting minutes.
“I don’t believe anyone knew the State Police would get involved,” said Frost. “But I don’t know that (reimbursement) was ever reflected in the Select Board minutes. The bills and warrants were paid and we were never told what the bills and warrants are. I guess I have to apologize on my part. We have all learned something.”
The Attorney General’s Office refused to confirm or deny whether it was conducting an investigation into the allegations leveled in the letter from the Vernon Voters Alliance.
In past cases involving open meetings law, investigators have looked at how decisions were made and whether they were done in an illegal manner, such as in an executive session or via email or phone discussions. Usually, if a transgression is identified, a public board is reprimanded and ordered to review Vermont’s open meetings law and adjust its procedures.
A review of meeting minutes prior to the Dec. 21 meeting shows no indication a discussion was conducted in relation to the legal advice or on whether O’Donnell should have received reimbursement.
