In response to a complaint filed Tuesday by Burlington resident Wayne Senville, councilors voted 10-1 that they did not violate the state’s open meeting law. Councilor Max Tracy (P-Ward 2) cast the sole opposing vote, while Councilor Brian Pine (P-Ward 3) did not attend.
On Monday, the council voted to approve the funding for the $5.8 million project, the final step in moving forward with the downtown park renovation — or so they thought. Senville sent a complaint to the City Attorney’s Office the next day, saying that the city had filed supplementary meeting documents too late to allow citizens to comment on them.
“It was clearly insufficient to provide even a cursory review of these documents,” Senville told the council at Friday’s meeting, which had been called to address his complaint. “Members of the public were unable to comment in a meaningful way.”
City Attorney Justin St. James defended the city’s process. “Our office unequivocally believes there was no open meeting law violation,” he said.
He explained that the city must provide a 48-hour notice of the agenda but has no such requirements for other documents. “The city goes above and beyond by providing supporting documentation,” St. James said.
Several members of the public also showed up to defend the council’s process. They appeared exasperated by Senville’s complaint and the tactics used by others who have opposed the park project.
John Bossange, vice chair of the Burlington Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission, decried Senville’s letter as “embarrassing” and destructive to democracy. “It appears we have Burlington’s own version of a national Tea Party: Obstruction at all cost … until I get my way,” he said.
Resident Hannah King called the letter “an antidemocratic attempt to derail a public initiative [that] needs to be called out as such.”
Councilors, too, expressed their impatience at the procedural complaint. Councilor Joan Shannon (D-South District) said the last minute budgetary changes that Senville objected to were actually a response to public feedback to make the park plan less expensive.
“We cannot be both responsive to the public and not allow ourselves to make amendments on the floor that have not been publicly warned,” Shannon said. “It’s the way we make our laws and decisions better. “
Councilor Jane Knodell (P-Central District) warned that continued obstruction would lead to “paralysis in government.”
“If we have a paralyzed government, then we’ll only have a private sector that can act on behalf of its goals,” she said. “I don’t think that is in the interest of the citizens.”
But others acknowledged that Senville’s claim had merit. Tracy, the sole no vote, said the council’s work had been sloppy and rushed on Monday.
“It can open the door to questions in a process that has already been incredibly controversial and divisive,” he said.
Sharon Bushor (I-Ward 1) voted in favor of the resolution but said that the council could nonetheless use a training on the state’s open meeting law. “We don’t want to put up walls to suggest that engagement should be limited,” she said.
Senville now has the option to challenge the council’s decision on the open meeting violation in court.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Thank you Max Tracy. At least one person on City Council isn’t willing to roll over and bark and wag his tail for a treat every time Miro and his Money Buddies command it.
Senville himself took the city to task only days before for “not include one single suggestion for how the Park plan could be scaled back or re-evaluated to reduce its cost” (his words) and then threatens a lawsuit against the City when they did exactly what he asked them to do?
John Bossange, who has been on Parks and Rec commission for over 20 years and also has his own conflict of interest as a voting member of the Burlington Parks Foundation?
“The city goes go above and beyond by providing supporting documentation,” St. James said.
Pretty sure St. James didn’t say “goes go” – unless he was sloppily referencing an 80’s band.
Good eye, Tiki. We’ve fixed this. Thanks!
@cwinklem
Why don’t you get on the board and take Bossange’s place rather then complain all the time.
Thousands of people had objections, yet the voters were not allowed to vote on the issue. Justice may be served someday. And I trust Wayne more than I trust the Mayor. It is interesting that the gang of several dozen (likers and dislikers) cannot understand why anyone would object to the new park design, the public process, or the numerous mistakes in the park plan – and its budget. They feel that those who get in the way are obstructing progress. This is not so. When they see the new Park, they will see what the City has done despite those objections. You are welcome to like or dislike this – I know 3300 people who would rather have voted on the design. Relax, boys, you will never be without opposition to careless development. You shall never own the city.
“Thousands of people had objections, yet the voters were not allowed to vote on the issue.”
Every resident of Burlington had eight years to vote on the park plan. The final result didn’t go exactly the way you want so you tried to undo eight years of work. That hardly seems democratic to me.
Excuse me, Mr. knowyourassumptions, but I could swear you are talking to me.
Eight years with fingers in ears does not constitute a dialogue. Why not listen to Sasha and just talk about the issues, rather than who of us is a winner?
While making amendments that have not been publicly warned may be reasonable in many cases, scrambling to make major changes in a deeply controversial major project just minutes before the meeting is not.
Furthermore, the context includes: a lame duck council meeting, the elimination of a popular element — public bathrooms, and a cost-cutting downgrade from top quality materials like granite.
These are changes of an order that should not be made by the Council in haste and on the fly. They unmistakably are changes of the kind on which the open meeting law requires the public to be given a reasonable opportunity to express its opinion.
I applaud Wayne Senville for raising the issue. This is not a cynical effort to obstruct, but a principled objection to a Council playing fast and loose with the law.
It is profoundly farcical that after behaving this way, the very same Council is entrusted with deciding whether they have violated the open meeting law.
The absence of even a semblance of ethics helps explain why the The Center for Public Integrity gives Vermont a D minus. If they graded Burlington separately, it might be even worse.
If this exact same park plan came out during either the Bernie, Clavelle, or Kiss administrations, and anyone dared criticize the final plan after the exact same 8 year public planning process, the exact same people who are now howling against the plan would be howling against any critics of the plan and calling them undemocratic.
The criticism of the project is 100% partisan.
I”m curious about the cost of the project. The town of Shelburne is building an entirely new, state of the art library and renovating the adjacent Town Hall for $7 million, including design fees, contractor fees, demolition and environmental remediation, and high steel tariffs … why does a park with no buildings cost $5.8 million?
@Michael Long
Lame Duck council? It was a 10-2 vote. Even with the new members voting against it the vote would have been 7-5 in favor of the new park.
I second the question posed by Mr. Realitycheck.
I just hope once construction starts we don’t have people chaining themselves to the trees.
REALITY CHECK Probably because Miro is getting a cut for himself! He’s as crooked as the rest of the politicians
This is for AllFourSeasons :
First there’ll be a fence erected, then we’ll hear the sound of chainsaws. We’ll see the tops of the trees fall behind the fence, and hear the sound of chippers. I don’t think you need worry about that.
Gigrape52@gmail.com
“REALITY CHECK Probably because Miro is getting a cut for himself! He’s as crooked as the rest of the politicians”
Would love to see real proof of that!
Someone on this thread has just actually made an accusation that the mayor of Burlington is taking a bribe on the rebuild of City Hall Park.
Please think about what you said. Accusing the Burlington mayor of taking a bribe. Shame on you.
Please produce the evidence for your accusation.