More than 100 people crowd a Rutland Board of Aldermen meeting. Credit: Mark Davis
Critics of a plan to bring 100 Syrian refugees to Rutland lambasted city officials and resettlement experts during a heated Board of Aldermen meeting on Wednesday night.

Many aldermen complained that they were shut out of deliberations on the plan, which was hatched by Mayor Chris Louras and the nonprofit Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program.

“I have a big concern about how this has played out … behind the backs of the city of Rutland,” Alderman David Allaire said before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 people in the Godnick Adult Center. “How can you come to our city and decide for our citizens what information is to be released and when? How can you ever regain the trust of the citizens of Rutland?”

The plan, which Louras and other supporters say will bring economic and cultural vitality to a city suffering from population loss and abandoned houses, has sparked heated reactions since it was announced in April.
Officials from the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program attended the meeting to answer questions from the aldermen and the public. 

Aldermen devoted their time to criticizing refugee officials for not seeking their input before naming Rutland as a refugee location.

“If you’re not truthful from the onset … you’re on very, very thin ice,” Alderman Ed Larson said. “There was a veil of secrecy [involving] your agency, the mayor and his confidants. Out of the loop were the elected officials from the city of Rutland and the [legislative] delegation, who were totally blindsided.”
 
Most of the members of the public who spoke Wednesday night were opposed to the plan.

“Once it’s embedded in the community it’s kind of like drugs — you can’t get rid of them,” Maurice Fredette said.

One woman said she feared the refugees would impose Sharia law in Rutland. Many in the crowd applauded her. 

The Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program places most refugees who arrive in the state in Burlington and Winooski, but its leaders have long wanted to establish a second hub. The organization chose Rutland over a half dozen other communities — Woodstock, Middlebury, Brattleboro, Bennington, Warren and Waitsfield — that expressed interest in hosting the Syrians. The refugees, who are currently living in camps in Jordan after fleeing their war-torn country, are scheduled to begin arriving in October.

Resettlement program director Amila Merdzanovic said the organization has long hoped to add a new refugee hub in the state.

While Board of Aldermen approval is not required to bring the refugees to Rutland, Merdzanovic said her organization values community support.

More than 1,000 people have signed onto a Facebook page supporting the refugees, and more than 170 people crowded a church meeting earlier this month offering their help. But the crowd Wednesday night was in no mood to offer support.

“I object to your agency and people in the public saying, ‘They’re like our ancestors,’” said David Trapeni, who has drafted a petition opposing the refugees. “They’re not like my ancestors, who came here with no promises [and] no safety net, and I object to it, thank you.”

Related Stories

Got something to say?

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

Mark Davis was a Seven Days staff writer 2013-2018.

10 replies on “Critics of Rutland Refugee Plan Grill Aldermen, Resettlement Officials”

  1. There’s a saying…”there but for the grace of God….” shame on this group of selfish people!

  2. Racism and xenophobia disguised as a play for political transparency. See Utica, NY, a city just like Rutland, struggling, declining… until they accepted thousands of Muslim refugees.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-refugee…

    Truth is, welcoming political refugees saves towns, saves economies, and saves local business.

  3. The idea that 100 refugees from a vicious civil war in Syria are going to somehow “impose Sharia Law in Rutland” is simply breath-taking.

    Do people really believe that our institutions in the this state — our laws, our courts, our community organizations, our religious institutions, and our own values and beliefs — are so weak and vulnerable that such an imposition would be possible? (Ignoring for a moment the reality that these folks’ agenda is a place to live in peace and raise their families away from sectarian strife, not to be the tip of the arrow of some mythical Islamist takeover…)

    I understand that people saying these things are speaking out of profound fear and lack of knowledge — shame on the political leaders, the opportunistic hate mongers, and the media voices that create these fears by spreading misinformation, lies and hate..

    In the end, I trust that Vermont values of respect, tolerance and community will win out over such attitudes.

  4. The voices of ignorance, braying fear of the unknown. My people came from Syria (Lebanon) to Vermont over 100 years ago, put down roots, and made good. I lived in Syria for 6 years. The people who are coming are not jihadis; they’re not going to “impose shariah law”. They’re fleeing that sort of thing.

    And they’re not a disease.

    They’ll settle down, overcome their trauma, raise their kids, and be great additions to the community.

  5. These people are fearful, but it’s difficult to blame them when ‘news’ outlets and the media no longer speak the truth and instead spark fears and incite this exact behavior. Living in the Winooski area I can tell you the only issue I have had with any of the refugees is jaywalking and driving a bit faster on some back streets than I would like. Most are looking to escape death – either at the hands of warlords in their home countries or in the camps where the necessities of live are meager (at best). They want to have a place to live, raise their families and have a shot at life.

  6. (I serve on Rutland’s Board of Aldermen. These are my personal views and not representative of the Board or City of Rutland.) There is no doubt in my mind that a moral imperative exists to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I have been following this story through all of the media outlets, and generally refrain from responding. However, I take issue with the suggestion of “racism and xenophobia disguised as a play for political transparency.” I am not anti-resettlement. I am against secrecy and a lack of government transparency. I am against any agency that has a $2.6M budget but provides only $625k in Direct Aid to Refugees (USCRI Audited Financial for FY 2015). VRRP’s Amila Merdzanovic looked me straight in the eye last night and lied, saying the last time they were audited by the State was last year. I’ve spoken with State Auditor Hoffer. It was 1999, and it was an unfavorable audit.For six months, secret meeting were being held with VRRP to plan this. I’m not against refugee resettlement in Rutland, just not with this agency who is profiting ($1.3M in salaries vs $625K refugee aid) from the plight of the vulnerable. SevenDays ran a story about Iraqi refugees in BVT (Exiles on North Street, 12/10/08). Not one had a kind thing to say about VRRP. Staff of SevenDays said I would be contacted regarding a follow-up piece to that story…still waiting.

  8. I understand that many people want to be nice to the refugees, and that is an entirely valid feeling, but we must also consider what this may lead to in the future. I am fully aware that this particular group is only 100 people, but if refugees keep continuously coming here, Vermont could end up looking like Germany, Sweden, or the UK. All these countries are facing a huge increase in violence and rape, most of which can be traced back to these newcomers.

    I am certain that the (((Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program))) will insist later on that more refugees must come as well, and eventually we may face a situation similar to that of the aforementioned countries.

    If we are to accept this group of refugees, we must be especially careful to balance our urge to be nice with the the protection of our own people.

    Watch the below video if you wish to get a good feel for how bad the problem is. (Yes, the video is propaganda, but it is good propaganda, and represents a very real problem.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZ…

    Also, to the (((guy))) who said “Truth is, welcoming political refugees saves towns, saves economies, and saves local business,” I must wonder where you get those ideas from. Refugees, in most cases, add nothing positive to the tows they move to except the individual friendliness which some may posses, something which can be found just as much or more in the native population.

  9. Lack of transparency and secrecy of doing this behind back of public is big issue that raises serious concerns. Looking beyond secrecy, citizens of Rutland should consider pros and cons of what has happened in Burlington and Winooski. On pro side, some refugees have gone on to become entrepreneurs, including bringing culinary diversity to restaurant scene. Some successful refugees have purchased homes and invested in maintaining homes. Many have truly adopted Vermont with positive attitude. Some greatly value education and athletics, like soccer. Very strict process to receive refugee status.

    On con side, portion of school budgets for English as Second Language and for special education and social services have skyrocketed. This has placed pressure and cuts on other parts of school budget and forced taxes higher. Under unfunded federal mandates of special education law, school districts are required to provide ESL services and special ed and it all falls on local taxpayer. In addition to increasing taxes, this could have negative consequences for educational opportunities of typically developing children of US citizens over next 10-15 years until refugees are fully integrated. Also, not everyone has been successful and, like any population of people, citizens and immigrants alike, some eventually fell into crime. Some whose families initially pass process for admission later get radicalized and reject their new home-land (see Minneapolis & also Boston Marathon bombing).

    Usually immigrant birthrates are much higher until 2nd or 3rd generation so pros and cons from that as well. If you value population growth like most economists, this can be seen as pro. If you value quality of life from not being overrun by traffic or don’t want neighborhoods to grow too dramatically, might be a con. Not necessarily one right answer. Who knows, maybe one of refugees is next Albert Einstein. Bush-Cheney bear some responsibility for worsening Middle East.

Comments are closed.