|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
The Milton Republican Town Committee is calling on State Senate candidate Irene Wrenner to stop distributing a campaign mailer that references the late Don Turner Jr., arguing that it creates a misleading impression about Turner’s views of Wrenner.
Turner, a former House Republican leader, Milton state representative, fire chief, and town manager, died in 2024.
“Don Turner knew exactly who he supported, and it wasn’t Irene Wrenner,” Milton Republican Town Committee Chair Cathy Vadnais said in a statement. “Twisting a secondhand memory of a man who can no longer speak for himself into a campaign endorsement is wrong.”
According to the committee, Wrenner’s mailer includes a recollection by a radio host [later identified as Morning Drive guest-host Steward Leadbetter] of something Turner reportedly said at a forum more than two years ago. The Republicans contend the remark is presented without enough context and could leave voters with the impression that Turner supported Wrenner.
The committee pointed to Turner’s political activity before his death, saying that during Wrenner’s 2024 re-election campaign, Turner endorsed her Republican opponent, Chris Mattos. The committee also noted that Turner was a supporter of Republican Rep. Ashley Bartley.
“Don’s actual position is a matter of public record,” the committee said.
Vadnais called on Wrenner to stop using the mailer and accused her of using Turner’s memory for political gain.
Turner was a longtime figure in Milton and Vermont Republican politics. He served in the Vermont House, including as House Republican leader, and later served as Milton town manager. Milton’s public works facility was named the Donald H. Turner Jr. Public Works Facility in his honor.
Vermont Daily Chronicle contacted Wrenner seeking her response to the Republican committee’s criticism and questions about the context of the Turner reference in the mailer. She had not responded as of publication.
VTGOP Chairman Paul Dame issued the following statement in response:
“When I saw what Wrenner had done, I was beside myself,” said Dame. “I don’t think I’ve seen a more insensitive, disingenuous and selfish thing ever done by a candidate desperate to win a race. Wrenner’s postcard appears to be an effort to take someone else’s memory of something said by the late Don Turner, and make it appear like an endorsement of her. Two years ago when Don was still with us he endorsed Wrenner’s opponent, Chris Mattos and it’s just disgusting to see Wrenner trying to mislead people in the very first election we’ve had since Don’s passing. Wrenner never would have dared to put out a postcard like that if Don were still alive today.
Everyone who knew Don Turner knew that he was a good-natured man who would always make an effort to say or do something positive. Don’s willingness to speak well of people he disagreed with is being twisted for political gain, and it’s one of the dirtiest tricks I’ve ever seen. This is just one more example of Irene Wrenner’s incredibly poor judgement which demonstrates how out of touch she is with the people of her district.
I am also calling on other Democrat Senators who served with Don to publicly condemn Wrenner’s mail piece, and join me in demanding her to issue a public apology to the family of Don Turner.”
Over the weekend the Milton Republicans also issued a statement on their Facebook page.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: politics
Well, seems like she accomplished what she wanted to do. Mailers went out. Can’t take them back. She will weather the storm, and still, her mission has been accomplished.
Tell me the GOP is terrified of the upcoming midterm elections without telling me the GOP is terrified of the upcoming midterm elections.
Every Vermonter should be terrified of any more democrat party folks being elected.
A moonbat lying? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
FYI The photo with this article is missing the front page of the postcard mailer and the offensive quote, which was taken out of context, by the candidate. The photo above is the backside of the postcard.
I was not contacted by the Vermont Daily Chronicle on Monday, although two other news outlets contacted me and heard back from me.
The controversy surrounding Irene Wrenner’s latest campaign mailer has generated plenty of discussion about the late Don Turner and whether his words are being used to create an impression of political support.
But for me, this story raises a larger question, one that is personal, but also fundamentally about the relationship between elected officials and the people they are supposed to represent.
The mailer sent to Milton residents invokes Don Turner’s name and memory in support of Wrenner’s candidacy. Turner was not simply a former legislator. He was a former House Republican leader, Milton representative, fire chief and town manager, the first guest to appear on my show Milton Today which he was deeply supportive of, and he died in 2024.
The Republican Town Committee points out that Turner endorsed Wrenner’s Republican opponent, Chris Mattos, in the 2024 election.
That history matters.
So does the wording of the mailer.
Wrenner writes that Don Turner’s words “meant a great deal” to her and that those words are among the reasons she is asking voters to return her to the Vermont Senate.
Whatever her intention, voters are entitled to examine whether invoking the memory of a deceased political figure in this manner gives an impression that his actual political record does not support.
And there is something else that deserves examination.
How does Irene Wrenner respond when someone challenges her?
I know the answer because I experienced it personally.
I invited Senator Wrenner to appear on Milton Today. We had several correspondences about the interview. At the last minute, she declined, leaving us scrambling to find another guest.
That was her right. Candidates are free to accept or decline invitations from journalists. But we could never invite her on again, as we cannot trust her.
But what happened afterward is a different matter.
When I subsequently sought appointment to the LCATV board, Wrenner, while serving as a sitting Vermont senator and seeking reelection, appeared before the board and spoke against my appointment. She also submitted a letter concerning me.
I have the correspondence.
I have the letter.
And I have the video of what occurred at the board meeting.
This isn’t hearsay. It is documented.
I subsequently brought my concerns about her conduct to the Vermont Senate Ethics Committee. I did so because I believe there is an important distinction between an elected official exercising her right to express an opinion and an elected official using the authority and stature of her office to silence a constituent and a local media organization.
And now I have been publicly characterized by Wrenner as a “bully.”
Let’s be clear about what I actually did.
I ask guests to come onto a local public-affairs program.
I ask questions.
I express opinions.
I continued doing the job I have been doing in local media for decades. Calling Truth to Power.
That isn’t bullying. That’s journalism and political speech.
An elected official doesn’t have to like the questions.
An elected official doesn’t have to accept an interview.
An elected official certainly doesn’t have to agree with a television host.
But there is a profound difference between disagreeing with someone’s speech and attempting to discredit the person exercising that speech.
And that distinction matters enormously when the person involved is an elected representative.
I am especially troubled by the gendered dimension of being labeled a “bully.”
I am not going to pretend that I can establish someone’s motive simply from that word. But I can say that I find the characterization deeply troubling when it is applied to a male journalist who is doing nothing more than asking questions and exercising his right to speak publicly.
If an elected official can characterize a constituent or local journalist as a bully simply because that person is persistent, critical or unwilling to accept the official’s preferred narrative, where does that leave legitimate public discourse?
Are we supposed to stop asking questions when a politician doesn’t like them?
I don’t think so.
And this is why I believe the Don Turner controversy deserves more than a partisan reaction.
Don Turner was a public servant.
Whatever one’s political affiliation, his public record belongs to the history of Milton. The Vermont Daily Chronicle reports that the Milton Republican Town Committee has objected to the use of his memory in Wrenner’s campaign mailer, particularly because of his documented endorsement of her opponent in 2024.
There is something fundamentally uncomfortable about using the words and memory of someone who is no longer here to respond for himself.
And that concern becomes even more significant when the person being invoked was not merely a private citizen but a former House Republican leader and Milton town manager.
Don Turner cannot explain what he meant.
He cannot correct the context.
He cannot tell Milton voters whether he intended his words as praise, friendship, political support or simply an expression of respect toward another person.
That is why the responsibility for providing that context falls on the person using his words in a political campaign.
But ultimately, my concern goes beyond one campaign mailer.
I don’t expect elected officials to agree with me.
I do expect them to understand that criticism is part of public life.
I expect them to distinguish between criticism and harassment.
I expect them to understand that a journalist asking difficult questions isn’t a bully simply because the questions are uncomfortable.
And I expect elected officials to recognize that their constituents don’t surrender their First Amendment rights when they disagree with the people they elected.
Democracy isn’t strengthened by surrounding elected officials with people who only agree with them.
It’s strengthened when politicians can sit across from people who challenge them, answer the questions, defend their positions and allow voters to decide for themselves.
That’s the standard I believe every public official should be held to, including those with whom I agree.
And that’s why I am writing this.
I’m writing because how an elected official treats dissent tells us something important about how that official understands public service.
The voters of Milton deserve to know the documented facts, see the correspondence and video for themselves, and make their own judgment.
Asking Gemini to inspecting the official Vermont General Assembly Profile Page for former Senator Irene Wrenner (2023–2024 session) reveals the roll call voting record. Not in full lock step with leadership.
Out of all recorded roll calls, she aligned with the Democratic majority on approximately 90% of votes (voting “Yea” on measures such as S.4, S.18, S.39, S.58, S.220, S.259, and H.72).
However, she explicitly cast a “Nay” vote against party lines on 5 recorded roll call questions across 3 major pieces of legislation:Specific Roll Call Votes Against Party Lines
S.5 (Affordable Heat Act / Clean Heat Standard) — 3 “Nay” Votes3rd Reading: Voted Nay (Passed despite her vote).Concurrence with House Amendment: Voted Nay (Passed).Gubernatorial Veto Override: Voted Nay to sustain Republican Governor Phil Scott’s veto, breaking directly with the Democratic supermajority (Veto overridden).
S.100 (Housing Reform / “HOME” Act) — 1 “Nay” VoteFinal Passage: Voted Nay on final Senate passage of the major housing and Act 250 reform bill (Passed).
S.258 (Intermunicipal & Natural Resources Governance) — 1 “Nay” VoteCommittee Amendment: Voted Nay on adopting the Natural Resources and Energy Committee report amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Bray (Passed).
Summary of Profile RecordCategoryRecord Count
Total Recorded Session Roll Calls~40–45 votes
Votes Aligned with Caucus (“Yea”)~35–40 votes
Roll Call Votes Against Party Lines (“Nay”)5 votes (S.5 3x, S.100 1x, S.258 1x)