STAMFORD — The Stamford Selectboard voted this week to “terminate” the state’s executive order related to Covid-19.
But in a letter issued Wednesday, Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan’s office said the town has no authority to opt out of the emergency guidelines issued by the governor.
Stamford, home to 812 residents, sits on the border of Massachusetts. Its five-person selectboard voted 3-2 in favor of a motion supporters hoped would allow Stamford to assume local power over Covid-19 restrictions detailed in EO 01-20, the executive order that requires mask-wearing in public places and quarantining after traveling out of state.
“Municipalities are subdivisions of the state,” the letter, addressed to Stamford’s selectboard chair and town clerk, reads. “Consequently, EO 01-20 remains in full force and effect within the Town of Stamford.”
Deborah Bucknam, a Walden-based attorney and vice chair of Vermont’s Republican Party, has guided the town’s legal argument, according to the Bennington Banner, which first reported the town’s attempt to terminate the order.
Bucknam recently wrote a column detailing her argument. “There is a way for our towns and municipalities to opt out of the governor’s state of emergency,” it reads.
She referenced Title 20, Section 13 of Vermont law, which grants “a majority of the legislative body of a municipality affected by a natural disaster the power to terminate a state of emergency within that municipality.”
“This provision could help towns and municipalities heavily dependent on the hospitality sector and other sectors extremely affected by the governor’s emergency management orders to make their own decisions about how to keep everyone safe in their own localities while helping their local businesses stay afloat,” she wrote.
In an interview Thursday, Donovan said Bucknam is misreading the statute.
“There is no authority for the town to opt out,” he said.
According to the state’s law, Title 20, Chapter 9 gives the governor power to declare a state of emergency in an “all-hazard” event, which includes “any natural disaster, health or disease-related emergency, accident, civil insurrection, use of weapons of mass destruction, terrorist or criminal incident” that poses a significant threat to the state.
Chapter 13 of Title 20 specifies that a municipality can only terminate a state of emergency when it relates directly to a “natural disaster.” A localized flooding event would be applicable, Donovan said. In those cases, municipalities could petition the governor to terminate a related state of emergency.
“But Covid-19 is not a natural disaster,” Donovan said. “It’s a global pandemic. It’s a public health crisis.”
Bucknam has offered Stamford free legal services should the town decide to sue the state following the attorney general’s response, which she anticipated.
Should she pursue legal action, Donovan said he’s ready to defend the governor’s order.
“We’ve done that since the get-go and we’ll continue to do that,” Donovan said. “My hope is it doesn’t go to court, because, as we transition to 2021, we have to work together to get through this. There is light at the end of the tunnel.”
Bucknam did not immediately return VTDigger’s request for comment.
Safety in Bennington County
Stamford’s vote comes in the midst of a spike of Covid-19 in Bennington County, where the town is located. The county has seen 158 new cases in the last 14 days, and the state reported 15 new cases on Dec. 30 alone.
Six people, including five officers, from the Bennington Police Department recently tested positive, and six employees from the Vermont Veterans’ Home have now tested positive for the virus. Three people in the county have died since the pandemic began.
Daniel Potvin, a selectboard member who has pushed the effort, made the motion to terminate the governor’s order at Tuesday’s meeting, which was filmed and posted to Facebook by Kevin Hoyt, a staunch gun rights activist who ran for governor this year.
Michael Denault and Carol Fachini voted with him in favor, while Christopher Warren and Chairwoman Nancy Bushika voted against it.
“We can be safe,” Denault said at the meeting. “The governor doesn’t need to tell me what to do.”
Denault said a successful lawsuit “could be used in the future for so many other things that violate our constitution.”
He noted a petition that dozens of Stamford residents signed, calling for a stop to what supporters see as an unconstitutional overreach of government power during the pandemic.
One commenter asked what part of the Constitution the governor’s order violates.
“In the Bill of Rights it says we have the right to freedom and privacy, to pursue happiness. Those types of pursuits of happiness are being violated throughout the state,” Denault said.
Some of the concern around the order in Stamford relates to its proximity to other states, and residents’ desire to travel nearby.
“I can go to Montpelier, but I can’t go 10 feet down the road?” Denault said. “Does that make sense? Is that constitutional? … My parents can go to Boston, but they can’t visit me on Christmas Day? That’s what doesn’t make sense.”
Asked at Thursday morning’s press briefing about Stamford’s vote against his executive order, Gov. Phil Scott said he feels the state is on “very solid ground, constitutionally,” and that he hopes Stamford residents continue to protect themselves and the community.
“I know this is frustrating. I understand,” Scott said. “We’re all frustrated. We want this to be over. But by just declaring it over doesn’t make it so. We still have an emergency on our hands and we’re still seeing people dying. We have to pay attention.”
