Colchester Town Manager Demands Officials Resign Over Camp Holy Cross Position

Tweet

In this week's Seven Days, I wrote about Colchester's upcoming special election on Oct. 4 to decide whether the town should buy the 27-acre Camp Holy Cross property from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington for $4.5 million. The diocese is selling off the lakefront real estate on Malletts Bay to help pay settlements to victims of its priest sex-abuse cases in Vermont. To read that original story, click here.

Apparently, Town Manager Al Voegele was less than pleased with Tuesday's announcement by the Colchester Community and Economic Development Advisory Council (CEDAC) that it was formally recommending that citizens vote against purchasing the property — in direct contradiction to the selectboard's own position. In emails and postings on Front Porch Forum, CEDAC Chair James Ehlers and Vice Chair Dave Usher called the potential Holy Cross purchase "fiscally imprudent" and the current time frame for evaluating it "untenable given the scope of the commitment at hand."

In an email response Thursday to CEDAC's announcement, Voegele demanded the resignation of the panel's chair and vice chair.

"CEDAC, as an instrument of the municipality, has no authority to express a public opinion counter to the policy of the selectboard," Voegele wrote. "The selectboard has been very clear that their goal as a board is to inform the public of the opportunities and liabilities of buying [Camp Holy Cross]. The Selectboard’s goal is to turn out a large number of citizens to vote. The Board has established a citizens committee to develop options for public discussion."

Voegele goes on to write that, "Your actions undercut the hard work of this citizens committee and the selectboard’s goal in having a community discussion unbiased by municipal government opinion. Finally, I am always fine with civil discourse but I will never bend to or accept a threat by anyone against myself as a person, as town manager, or as representative of the Colchester Government. Your most recent email demands that you now resign your membership in CEDAC."

Voegele didn't specify the nature of that "threat," but he's asked CEDAC to meet sometime next week to discuss this matter further. In the meantime, Ehler and others have raised another issue about the upcoming vote: On Town Meeting Day in 2010, Colchester voters gave the selectboard authority to begin negotiations with the diocese. But did they actually give the selectboard authority to enter a legally binding deal with the Catholic Church?

Not according to Colchester resident Brad Fredericks, who claims that the selectboard exceeded its legal authority granted by the March 2, 2010 ballot item, "which was solely intended to authorize preliminary negotiations for the property and was not intended to allow them to enter into a purchase and sales agreement." 

As Fredericks points out in an email yesterday to Seven Days, "The March ballot item was represented to voters as an authorization for the selectboard to initiate exploratory talks to determine the price the diocese would offer the property to the town, at which point a second vote would be held to determine if voters wanted to pursue a purchase. In fact, no negotiation with the diocese took place — the selectboard submitted a single bid for $4.5 million and that bid was accepted."

According to Selectboard member Marc Landry, if Colchester voters reject the purchase plan on Oct. 4, the town will get its $10,000 deposit returned, with no penalty.*

Fredericks, who emphasizes that he's not an attorney but has consulted with one on this matter, notes that in contract law, courts typically define "preliminary negotiations" as non-binding discussions that do not constitute a contract or agreement of any sort.

Not so, says Town Manager Voegele. Voegele says he checked with the town's attorney, Tom Walsh, and remains confident that, "the town selectboard is well within the law and within [its] privilege under the law."

Be that as it may, should voters give their thumbs up to this deal, the town could face a lawsuit from those who contend that this deal is a lemon and should be deep-sixed. Should such a suit be filed, questions may also arise about the town's decision to retain the Burlington public relations firm PMG for $15,000. Ostensibly, the two-month contract is meant to spread the word via social media sites about the upcoming vote. However, critics contend that the informational campaign is straying into the realm of advocacy for a "yes" vote.

Paying a firm $15K to write posts on Facebook, Twitter and Front Porch Forum rather than spending that money on a comprehensive feasibility study of the property's potential uses, liabilities and limitations, is also raising eyebrows among many Internet-savvy Colchester residents. Perhaps not surprising from a town where you can't even pay your property tax bill online, a situation Voegele himself bemoans.

*A previous version of this blog post mistakenly reported that the town would forfeit the deposit if voters reject the ballot measure.

Comments

[Introvert]

Clearly there is a divide in Colchester. And what about the plaintiffs against the Catholic Diocese? Will their lawyer file suit to block the "half-price" sale to be sure the plaintiffs get their settlement?

Perhaps Mr. Voegele should have better briefed the CEADC to let them know they were a rubber-stamp committee.

[Tom W.]

It sounds like it's town manager Voegele and the members of the Select Board who should be resigning in disgrace because they were caught trying to suppress opposing viewpoints on this deal.

It's just this kind of arrogance that frustrates tax payers.

[Dan]

Voegele is mad because he has opposition to this purchase .
That's the whole problem in this town --the selectboard does what it pleases with a method of being underhanded about it to the voters !! Voegele isn't exactly what I would call a good town manager !!Fact of the matter is that he needs to go and be replaced with someone with new and better ideas !! Ehlers and Usher are right. This purchase does nothing for this town but incur more expense. Most of the parks are not used to their full capacity as it is and they want to buy more land. How fiscally prudent is that !!!

[Tim]

Typically selectboard seats in Colchester go uncontested- year after year. Maybe it is time for that to change.

[reelvermonter]

Spending taxpayer money to influence a vote in Vermont is illegal. Colchester, South Burlington, Burlington is there a difference? Naw!

[Disgusted with Autocratic Town Managers]

Voegele's display of pique and bullying of citizen volunteers acting in good faith constitutes grounds for his termination. Let's see whether the Selectboard has any guts. If they don't, vote them out. BTW, the Selectboard breached its duty to the Town in committing resources of that magnitude without a vote on the price, at least. Also, it would be malpractice for the Town's attorney to approve a purchase and sale agreement without some sort of re-approval contingency.

[Tim]

I would like to commend Mr. Picard who, despite being pro purchase and a red bastard, still produced a cogent and important piece of journalism here.

[Ken Picard]

Um, thanks, Tim. Honestly, though I was initially excited about the Camp Holy Cross purchase opportunity, the more I've learned about it, the more undecided I've become. Some might call that flip-flopping. I consider it being openminded.

As for being a "red bastard," I'm closer to tan and knew both my parents...

[SAB]

Given that the "powers that be" cannot seem to get a police station established, have let the Hazelett property go undeveloped, have let the plans for the Village Park languish and now have to rely on volunteers to create a business plan for Camp Holy Cross they could not accomplish why should we entrust another acquisition to them? They need to hire a PR firm to promote their product (15K not included in this year's budget to my knowledge) and yet they try to undermine and fire the Chair and Vice Chair of CEDAC who have worked, again as volunteers, on behalf of the health, vitality and fiscal well being of Colchester. I think the summer heat has fried the Manager's brains and it took Palmer and Landry along with him. Wipe the slate clean and let's find new blood to get this Town back on track. The select board should acknowledge that this town is more than they can handle and admit that Colchester needs to change this form of government to one that represents all the citizens and then ELECT a mayor who reports to the citizens.

[Tim]

That's just hyperbolic sarcasm Ken, I totally respect you and all the red bastards in the newsroom.

[SAB]

Upon further contemplation I am wondering where is the SB on helping/supporting a location for a replacement CSWD drop off site? Shirley has only been before the board at least 4 if not 5 times and who knows how many letters she may have submitted and the hours spent working on this effort. O yes, now I recall, Micky Palmer stated at the Camp Holy Cross dog and pony show, replete with hot dogs (no pun intended), that there was no plan for Camp Holy Cross because they could only handle so much at one time and other pressing matters took precedence over a plan for Camp Holy Cross and then of course Mr Landry did mention that the plan was a matter for the next Select Board to address. How many other projects and concerns have been left dangling while they fidget? This is just more evidence that the current form of managing/governing the Town is NOT getting the job done Good luck to the folks on River Road who want their safety concerns addressed. So glad to know the SB think they are on track (that is sarcasm by the way) while the rest of the volunteer citizens of Colchester are trying to pick up their slack. Our only hope is that the Town has not forced the concerned and caring citizens of the Town to have to move out of Town due to the 2003 under appraisal screw up and the catch up to recover in 2011.

[Richard dik hed Sckull]

The quote of "fiscally imprudent" appears to make sense, seeing the over 4 million to be paid for by taxpayers over the next 20 years has no plan. No plan could certainly be referred to as "fiscally imprudent".

[Liz]

Not surprisingly, after the property re-evaluation fiasco, Mr. Voegele is feeling defensive. He should - all of his actions on that seem to indicate that he believes it is perfectly fair for government to operate in an environment of secrecy and misinformation to keep the populace under control. Now, once more, he seeks to silence those who would offer other information. Shame, shame, Mr. Voegele.