BY MAT CLOUSER
BRANDON — The October 10 selectboard meeting in Brandon was figured to be quick and easy, with very little in the way of actionable agenda items. However, it quickly became embroiled in controversy after previous allegations of sexism and questions about the board’s conduct surrounding the recent filling of a vacant seat on that board cropped up yet again by way of personal comment.
At issue was the commentary by Brandon resident Sandy Mayo, Ph.D., who spoke about her recent experiences dealing with the board—and in particular with board chair Seth Hopkins—during the process following her recent application to fill a vacant position on the town’s Development Review Board (DRB) that became vacant after Ralph Ethier was appointed to the selectboard in September.
Dr. Mayo read from a letter that she said she would be filing with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) in which she alleges she was mistreated and that the board had improperly followed procedures following her application to the DRB, as well as outlining “a terrible and intimidating experience” with Mr. Hopkins during her interview for the DRB position.
“The chair publicly announced my application to go on the DRB,” said Dr. Mayo. “This was after [he said] that he did not post names of applicants publicly until after the board made their decision. I was shocked. Here he was, calling me out in front of everyone. It was intimidating to me to be singled out like that.”
“He then asked if I would agree to an interview in an executive session after the meeting,” she continued. “In the executive session, the chair asked whether I thought I was a contentious person. This was the only question he asked. I was appalled at the lack of interest he and the whole selectboard had in the interview, not questioning anything about me other than implying I was a contentious person.”
“I was treated unfairly,” Mayo’s letter concluded. “By filing a complaint, this type of treatment of women will stop happening, and women who want to serve as members on boards, commissions, and or committees [may be] treated equally and fairly by the Brandon Selectboard.
In an email exchange following the meeting, Dr. Mayo said that she would not be filing the same letter to both the VLCT and the HRCT. “I’m going to separate the human rights issue from the policy issue,” she wrote. “One doc will go to Human Rights Commission, the other to VLCT. I will send copies to the board and inform them I have amended my original complaint.”
One item of note during the selectboard meeting on October 10 was the appointment of Jim Des Marais and Eve Beglarian to the DRB and the Energy Committee, respectively—a process which Dr. Mayo also took umbrage with, eventually posting a second letter on Front Porch Forum October 13, entitled “Comments on Procedure.”
In the letter, Dr. Mayo also gives her interpretation of the board’s recent filling of the open selectboard seat—a process that others have criticized for its lack of transparency despite the board’s having operated in accordance with the law.
“Brandon Selectboard meetings are confusing, especially when it comes to appointing new members to various boards,” wrote Mayo. “Something ‘other’ seems to take place outside the meeting. It is questionable what process the chair uses each time he appoints members to boards, commissions, and committees.”
“At the most recent Selectboard meeting, the chair announced they were going into Executive Session,” the letter continued. “It was stated more specifically on Front Porch Forum that the selectboard would hold an executive session regarding police staffing. The Chair did not mention this when the meeting was adjourned, and the audience was asked to leave. No motion, no vote, or subject was mentioned before the board went into executive session… [the] townspeople need to attend selectboard meetings to know what is going on; after all, these are our tax dollars at work.”
“I am truly sorry that Sandy Mayo, Ph.D. found her experience to be “terrible and intimidating” and found my actions to be “intimidating” among other characterizations. She is entitled to her point of view, and I would not presume to tell another person what they should feel,” said Mr. Hopkins by way of an email exchange.
“The selectboard had been criticized before (on Front Porch Forum), and at the September 12 selectboard meeting for not disclosing the names of candidates interested in being appointed, so we changed our practice,” he continued referring to the board’s recent adoption of a waiver to be signed by all potential applicants to varying town positions—a waiver which Dr. Mayo signed during her application to the DRB. However, she questions the legal validity of the document.
“We are now criticized by Ms. Mayo for doing what the board had just been criticized for not doing,” Hopkins continued. “We had engaged in a process to address that criticism at the September 12 meeting. We had a discussion including inviting public input on the possibility of a cover sheet to affirm and clarify that appointment candidates’ names would be made public.”
“There was no objection or further comment from the public present [Dr. Mayo was present via Zoom] … It was the clear consensus of all that making public the names of candidates for appointments would be the policy going forward; it had only to be formalized.”
Speaking directly to Mayo’s claim of the question about whether or not she was a “contentious person,” Hopkins denied asking the question and Dr. Mayo’s assertion that it was the only question she was asked.
“Not only did I not ask her that at all,” wrote Hopkins, “but my first words were a welcoming statement thanking her for her interest which I segued into my first question, which was “What do you think is the proper role of the Development Review Board in Brandon”? Her response [was], “What do you think it is?”
“She declined to answer a straightforward, agenda-free question of a general nature regarding the board she wanted to be appointed to,” Hopkins continued. “During the course of the interview, and informed by a selectboard member’s recent DRB service, it became apparent that Ms. Mayo’s vision of what the DRB would do and the recent lived experience of the Brandon DRB’s actual business were not in alignment.”
“Recollections may vary, but I believe that there will be five substantially similar recollections of this exchange and this interview and one which is not like the others,” he went on. “Attributing my actions to being “mainly based on [her] gender” is not congruent with the actual facts of (among other things) my budget committee and selectboard service, including my recent vote to appoint a woman to the selectboard, and when that failed, then my vote against appointing a man.”
When reached for comment via email, selectboard member Tim Guiles seemed to support Hopkin’s version of events. “After we welcomed Sandy to the executive session interview, Seth asked the first question,” wrote Guiles of his recollection. “This was—what do you think is the role of the DRB? Sandy replied (I’m paraphrasing) that she wasn’t sure and asked us the same question. A conversation ensued.”
“Later in the process,” Guiles continued, “Seth asked about her experience, which she referenced in her letter of interest [which can be found online in the Sept 26 board packet]; Seth asked if it was a contentious experience.”
Of Dr. Mayo’s second letter, Hopkins wrote,” I think it provides a perspective that makes assumptions which are unsupported by the facts on the record. She says “each time he appoints members to boards,” but I don’t make appointments. A board of five—accountable to the voters—does, at a warned meeting, and only after inviting, hearing, and considering comment from the public.”
As to the assertion that the board mishandled its segue into executive session, Hopkins wrote, “The board routinely is recessed so that people can leave the meeting room before the board holds its vote to enter a warned executive session. If moving that vote to before the recess is more desirable, we can certainly do it that way going forward. I’m happy to make that change to the board’s routine.”
“I’m not on the selectboard to do anything but what is best for the town I live in and own a business in, and with my strong, intelligent wife of nineteen years, raise our three strong, intelligent daughters in,” wrote Hopkins, reflecting on his views of life as a member of the board. “None of us are there for “power” … or “glory” because there is none of that.”
“Serving on the selectboard is a reasonably good way to make new friends as you get to know more people who have matters of concern before the board, but it is an even better way to lose friends… as you make decisions that serve the broadest community but may not be helpful to a particular party,” he continued.
Hopkins wrote that he continues his selectboard work despite what he describes as a sometimes-thankless job with paltry wages, saying, “I would answer [that with] I think I have something to contribute to the prudent conduct of self-government in our town.”
“I still think I have that to offer,” he continued, “plus, the benefit of experience as the voters have done me the honor of electing me seven times for eight years. But now, I would add to that answer—I’m also doing this so that other people of goodwill will not be deterred from public service in Brandon by watching a person of goodwill be hounded to the point of giving up.”
