To the Editor: A recent letter to the Woodstock Standard (August 17) laments the fact that so many Woodstock officials have resigned in the recent past, attributing the attrition to the volume of public criticism of official behavior.
The writer ignores the fact that public criticism has grown in direct response to the behavior of public officials. That behavior continues unabated and largely unaddressed by Woodstock officials.
Woodstock’s “leadership” wouldn’t be facing so much criticism now if leaders had behaved honestly and lawfully in the past two years. Would we be where we’re at now:
* If the municipal manager had followed any kind of reasonable personnel policy protocol when he first put Chief Swanson on administrating leave in 2024?
* If the trustees had followed any reasonable due process procedure with regard to Chief Swanson?
* If Woodstock officials had not interfered with and manipulated a union vote in the Woodstock PD.
* If the manager and the trustees had not violated the law in demoting Chief Swanson in 2025?
* If the manager and the trustees had fully obeyed the court order in 2025?
* If Woodstock boards had not frequently abused the law covering executive sessions?
* If the manager and the select board had not secretly paid for Village legal expenses, in violation of state laws?
* If Woodstock boards had not frequently violated the state’s Open Meeting laws?
* If Woodstock boards had put the manager on administrative leave in July, when the Vermont State Police began their criminal investigation into the covert tax transfer of Town Funds to pay Village expenses?
* If the select board had immediately sought to recover its tax funds as soon as the transfer became public knowledge in 2025?
* If Woodstock officials had not chronically abused Vermont’s public records laws?
These are all among the best known failures of Woodstock leadership.
To date, Woodstock has addressed none of these issues forthrightly or adequately. Why would anyone be surprised by public criticism?
All Woodstock officials, past and present, are culpable in these failures, whether by overt acts or complicit silence.
Based on their performance over the past couple of years, all Woodstock boards’ elected officials appear to be in violation to greater or lesser degree of their oath of office to “do equal right and justice to all persons to the best of my judgment and ability, according to law.” William Boardman, Woodstock
Most Vermont legislators earn “F” on JBS Freedom Index – To the editor: If you think “King” Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution, wait until you see how poorly your state legislators are performing. John Birch Society, a Constitution-defending organization, asks, “Do they [your legislators] support limited government, responsible spending, independence, and minding your own business?” For nearly all Vermont legislators, the answer is a big fat “no.”
The John Birch Society Freedom Index, “a congressional scorecard based upon the Constitution,” is a useful tool for researching national and state legislative incumbents on how well they adhere to the U.S. Constitution based upon their voting records. Explanations for the grades are included, along with links to read the text of bills upon which legislators were graded.
The Grades for Federal legislators:
All three federal legislators received “F” grades: Senator Bernie Sanders scored the highest “F” grade at 26%; Senator Peter Welch scored 21%; while Representative Becca Balint scored the lowest grade of 8%.
Freedom Index for State Legislators:
One hundred forty-six out of 186 Vermont state legislators that were graded earned an “F” grade. One hundred and one state legislators earned a 0% grade. Seventeen earned a “D,” and 11 earned a “C”.
Six legislators earned a “B” grade: Russ Ingalls, Joe Luneau, Kevin Winter, Mark Higley, Larry Labor, and Joe Parsons, in that order. Congratulations! And thank you!
Limitations of the Freedom Index:
- Does not grade legislators on whether they voted to put Prop 4 so-called “Equality of Rights” amendment before the voters.
- Does not grade legislators based upon bills sponsored but not taken up or passed.
- Can give a legislator a positive rating for voting the “right” way for the “wrong” reasons.
- Only grades through the year 2025, so 2026 votes are not included in the grading process.
What are the issues that tanked Vermont state legislators’ grades? Voting in favor of Prop 3 so-called “Right to Collective Bargaining” proposed constitutional amendment and legislation regarding government subsidized housing, health care central planning, homeless community programs, collective bargaining, and the Omnibus spending bill, H.493 “Big Bill – Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations Act”.
Why?
JBS claims these legislative acts increase government intervention and spending and expands the welfare state.
“Economic prosperity and safety comes from limited government and free markets, along with personal responsibility,” JBS claims.
Regarding Prop 3 “Right to Collective Bargaining”, JBS states, “. . . collective bargaining interferes with individual liberties, and compelling individuals to negotiate collectively infringes upon their right to freely associate or negotiate on an individual basis.”
The above being said, the responsibility for Vermont legislators’ grades, and subsequently, affordability, lies upon the voters. Some legislators are ideologically driven against the U.S. Constitution. Look to the legislators that scored an “F.” Many other legislators vote on bills based upon what the majority of voters support regarding social issues.
You cannot expect legislators to vote in favor of unlimited social programs such as government-controlled health care, government subsidized housing and childcare, universal meals regardless of income, health and pregnancy care for persons residing in the U.S. illegally, unchecked union negotiations (Prop 3), affirmative action programs for “marginalized groups” (Prop 4) and have affordability, too.
Vermont voters, do you want affordability, or do you want your income and property redistributed equitably regardless of whether others are contributing? If you really want affordability, you might have to forego at least some of the socialist government programs and government intervention.
Under an intrusive government, you might get what you pay for, but you will pay dearly for what you get.
How you vote in November – for proposed constitutional amendments and for candidates – will determine Vermont’s freedom and “affordability” fate. – Renee McGuinness, Monkton