September 10, 2020
To the Burlington City Council:
This a formal complaint filed on behalf of Seven Days
newspaper in relation to the council’s actions during its special
meeting on Tuesday, September 8, 2020.
Your decision to invite some members of the public into an
executive session to discuss a personnel matter involving city
employees violated Vermont’s open meeting law, specifically
1 V.S.A. § 313.
When bringing the protest organizers behind closed doors, the
council cited “persons who are subjects of the discussion or
whose information is needed” — 1 V.S.A. § 313 (b). Nothing
presented publicly suggested that the protesters possessed any
privileged information regarding the conduct of the three
police officers they have been demonstrating against.
Councilor Jack Hanson’s proposal to bring members of the
public behind closed doors drew sharp rebukes from members
of the council itself, including Chip Mason and Franklin
Paulino, both of whom are practicing attorneys.
Despite that, the council voted to enter into, and then
participated in, an illegal executive session. Such a move is
deeply concerning to this newspaper and government
transparency advocates. How can Burlington residents trust
their elected officials when the council so cavalierly, and
overwhelmingly, chose to go behind doors in a manner that
violated the law? And how can the council choose to discuss
the matter with some constituents while shutting out the rest of
the community?
The long-standing controversies involving the actions of some
Burlington police officers and its command staff, as well as the
ongoing nightly protests, make this an issue of intense and
ongoing public concern. By holding these conversations in

 private, the public was deprived of the opportunity to express opinions on
government issues. 1 V.S.A. § 312 (h).
To remedy this egregious decision, this newspaper demands that the council
release the names and titles or affiliations of every person who entered the
executive session; how long the members of the public were allowed to
participate in the closed-door meeting; and what topics of conversation were
discussed. Per 1 V.S.A. § 313 (1), we request an explanation of how having
the protesters testify in public would have "put the city at a substantial
disadvantage” in the personnel matter, as described in the motion to enter the
executive session.
We also seek any notes, memos or minutes taken of the session.
Further, we demand that the council immediately discontinue its abuse of
executive session and conduct trainings on the open meeting law to ensure
this does not happen again. It was quite clear that members of the council
did not respect the core purpose of the law — “to give public exposure to
government decision-making.” Valley Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Town of
Hartford, 165 Vt. 463, 468 (1996). A decision by the council to commit
itself to transparency and adherence to the law would go a long way in
regaining the trust of the public.
Thank you for your prompt attention to our concerns. Please reach out with
any questions.
Sasha Goldstein
Deputy news editor, Seven Days
sasha@sevendaysvt.com