Opponents of the F-35s at the City Council meeting Credit: File: Katie Jickling
The Burlington City Council on Monday agreed to allow voters to weigh in on the future basing of the F-35 fighter jets — but not before a lengthy discussion about ballot wording that, in the end, will remain the same.

The Town Meeting Day ballot question is advisory, and is not likely to prevent the planned 2019 arrival of the F-35s. The crux of the debate during Monday’s meeting centered not around the vote itself, but around language F-35 opponents used conveying “strong support” for the Vermont Air National Guard.

The original question, on a petition signed by 2,700 city residents, asked:


Shall we, the voters of the City of Burlington, as part of our strong support for the men and women of the Vermont National Guard, and especially their mission to ‘protect the citizens of Vermont,’ advise the City Council to:

1) request the cancellation of the planned basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport, and

2) request instead low-noise-level equipment with a proven high safety record appropriate for a densely populated area?

Three councilors — Jane Knodell (P-Central District), Dave Hartnett (D-North District) and Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) — proposed an amendment to delete the phrase, “as part of our strong support for the men and women of the Vermont National Guard, and especially their mission to ‘protect the citizens of Vermont.'”

Col. Hank Harder, the guard’s 158th Fighter Wing Vice Wing Commander, agreed with the proposed amendment, saying Monday that it would be “disingenuous and misleading” for F-35 opponents to frame their question in terms of support for the guard.

He called the ballot item unnecessary and misguided, and said construction projects and training have already begun in preparation for the F-35s’ arrival.

The fighter jets are the guard’s singular focus, Harder said: “Let me be crystal clear: There is no alternative mission for the Vermont Air National Guard.”

Col. Hank Harder Credit: Katie Jickling
Wright, in arguing for striking the controversial phrase, said that such “editorializing comments” have never before been allowed on a ballot question. Permitting such language would be a “precedent-setting mistake,” he said.

But the possibility of the change brought an outpouring of public outrage from about 150 residents and activists who sat in the balcony and lined the walls inside Burlington City Hall’s Contois Auditorium. Several held signs that read “let the people vote” and “don’t subvert democracy.”

Many of the same F-35 opponents also unsuccessfully sued the Air Force in 2016.

One F-35 opponent, Peggy Luhrs, accused the council of “eroding” democracy. Another speaker, Eric Maier, said the disillusioned residents would take their concerns to the ballot box — against the F-35s and incumbent city councilors — on Town Meeting Day.

“People have had enough of putting the interests of rich white dudes over average citizens,” he said.

Burlingtonians tesify against the F-35. Credit: Katie Jickling
City attorney Eileen Blackwood told councilors that they could be constitutionally required to put the question on the ballot. She pointed to a recent court ruling on a ballot issue in South Burlington concerning the name change of the high school mascot. Blackwood was not certain whether councilors have the authority to alter the wording of a question before it goes on the ballot.

In the end, the council voted 10-2 to allow the measure, as written, to go on the ballot for Town Meeting Day.

Chip Mason (D-Ward 5) said the decision would help the city avoid any potential legal action and called the vote “a bit of an erring on the side of caution.”

Related Stories

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Katie Jickling is a Seven Days staff writer.

10 replies on “Burlington Residents Will Vote on F-35 Question As Written”

  1. I hate to say this, but I kinda agree with the unholy alliance of Kurt Wright, Dave Hartnett and Jane Knodell. That question is very misleading. I have a problem with the “support our troops” as a reason to vote for something normally, but in this case it’s even worse because it’s just a complete lie.

    It’s good that citizen can get things on the ballot but questions should be clear and in good faith.

  2. “People have had enough of putting the interests of rich white dudes over average citizens,” Eric Maier. Replace white with any other color. Does that statement seem appropriate?

    The US Military is charged with protecting this country and its citizens. The US military, not Burlington town residents, decide what military equipment is stocked at the appropriate bases

  3. ‘The fighter jets are the guard’s singular focus, Harder said: “Let me be crystal clear: There is no alternative mission for the Vermont Air National Guard.”‘

    This is a lie. The mission for the VANG would remain exactly the same as before if the F-35 had not been designated for BTV. The entire threat of jobs, economy, etc. was a lie (helpfully perpetrated by Bernie Sanders!). The F-16 would have stayed. No jobs lost. And the f-35 basing means zero additional jobs. Just different.

  4. The editorializing in the ballot question might actually make is LESS likely to pass. In order to vote for it, a person needs to:

    1. Strongly support the VTANG;
    2. Strongly support its mission to protect the citizens of Vermont; and
    3. Oppose the F-35s.

    Isn’t there a group of people who oppose the F-35s because they oppose all war apparatus and don’t support the military in any form? This phrasing forces them to endorse something they don’t believe in to achieve the outcome they want.

  5. How is it misleading to say people support the Guard but do not support this harmful mission? That is their opinion. Why do you call that a lie? It is the exact sentiment that nearly 3,000 people signed their names to. Are you saying they are lying because they want to support the Guard but not at a price that causes damage to the homes, health and property values of thousands of everyday Vermonters? All the people who signed this petition understood exactly what they were saying: Yes to the Guard, No to the F35s. It’s very simple and clear and people will vote YES if they agree to it.

    Perhaps now its finally time for the Guard to find a mission that suits the community in which they are based, not continue to cause the destruction of hundreds and soon thousands of our homes in our residential communities!

    Stop trying to force this destruction of our livable communities with this weapon systems over-reach when there are reasonable alternatives. The United States Air Force testified that there are alternate flying missions available to VTANG in federal court documents — why is the Guard calling the AF liars?

  6. It is dishonest because the phrasing clearly creates the implication that to support the guard you should vote yes. It is dishonest to create the implication that guard members somehow would be supportive of not bringing F-35’s. The people who authored this ballot question have no idea what the majority of guard members think about this and almost certainly don’t care.

    I would have zero problem with this ballot question had been rephrased as:

    “Shall we, the voters of the City of Burlington, as part of our commitment to ensuring our community, and those around it, remain healthy and livable advise the City Council to:”

    Very simple fix that makes the question clear, without trying to trick Burlington residents in to voting for it.

  7. A trio of city councilors who recently voted to raise their own salaries are now lecturing a people’s movement about honesty?

    Blow me over with a feather.

  8. Mr. Cohen, I think it is a stretch to refer to what members of Council are paid as ‘salaries.’ At best, they are honorariums. While I often am not in agreement with the opinions of my representative (howdy, Kurt Wright), like his colleagues, he is tireless and devoted to the betterment of Burlington.

    If they were doing it for the money, they’d be better off working at Starbucks.

  9. redpirsig: “Replace white with any other color. Does that statement seem appropriate?”

    You’re correct, it would not be appropriate to use any other color, for it’s always been rich white dudes reaping the benefits of our military industrial complex.

    It’s not racist to point out the fact that the perpetrators of racism are white people.

Comments are closed.