By STEVEN JUPITER
BRANDON—The Brandon Selectboard convened for its first meeting of 2025 on Monday evening.
Police resignations
By far the most pressing issue before it was the recent resignation of 4 Brandon police officers.
One of those resignations had been anticipated by the town, but the other 3 officers had not signaled their intent to resign until they submitted their letters of resignation.
The resignations leave the Brandon Police Department (BPD) with only two full-time officers in addition to BPD Chief David Kachajian.
One of the departing officers, Aiden Alnwick, submitted his resignation on December 20, effective January 1. He is the designated handler for Guinness, the German Shepherd that had been trained to assist BPD with narcotics searches. Officer Alnwick has taken Guinness with him to his new position with the Middlebury Police Department.
Brandon Town Manager Seth Hopkins stated in a subsequent email to The Reporter that Middlebury will be paying Brandon $12,000 in compensation for Guinness, given the time and expense the town incurred in his training and the success the dog has had in narcotics cases here.
Officer Kevin Rimmer submitted his resignation on January 3, effective January 17.
Officer Joe Mannino submitted his resignation on January 8, effective January 23.
Officer Nicholas Stendardo submitted his resignation on January 10, effective January 24.
Officers Rimmer, Mannino, and Stendardo will all be moving to the Rutland City Police Department.
These resignations came in the wake of the Selectboard’s approval of a proposed FY26 town budget that increased BPD’s budget by more than 9% but would still require BPD officers to cover night shifts “on call,” which means that officers return home but can be called back to duty in Brandon, making their home lives and sleeping schedules unpredictable.
The departing officers will be making more money in their new positions and those heading to Rutland will not be asked to provide “on-call” service. Additionally, according to Mr. Hopkins, Officer Rimmer will be able to pursue the drug-related detective work that he favors in Rutland, as opposed to the more general patrol duties that Brandon’s smaller size required.
Mr. Hopkins also indicated that BPD Chief Kachajian will begin the search for new officers, casting “a big net” by advertising widely. However, the issues that seem to have prompted the departures will remain: Brandon is struggling to compete with departments that can afford to pay their officers more and can sustain larger rosters that eliminate the need for on-call service.
During the budget workshops for FY26, Mr. Hopkins presented the Selectboard with three scenarios for BPD that provided different levels of service based on increases or decreases in funding. The Board opted to increase the BPD budget by $81,000 from $856,400 to $937,000, which was still not sufficient to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage with the Chief and 5 full-time officers (Officer Alnwick’s eventual resignation from the 6-officer roster had already been anticipated at this point).
According to Mr. Hopkins and Chief Kachajian, BPD would need at least 10 full-time officers to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage, which would require that BPD’s annual budget be raised to well over $1 million per year. After last year’s struggles to pass the town budget—it failed twice—the Board was reluctant to ask voters to approve another double-digit percentage increase.
Though Board members Brian Coolidge and Tim Guiles advocated for diminished funding and coverage, the rest pushed for increased funding for the same or similar coverage, with no one choosing the “million-dollar” option. Ultimately, the Board approved the increased BPD budget in a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Coolidge voting nay.
During these budget workshops, the Board was warned that insufficient funding might result in departures from the department. In some meetings, BPD officers watched the proceedings from the back of the room. At least twice, Brandon Fire Chief Tom Kilpeck and Brandon Rescue Squad Chief Andy Jackson urged the Board to show BPD officers “respect” through the budget.
Yet, Brandon voters must now decide whether to accept a substantial increase in taxes for full police coverage or to accept diminished coverage to keep taxes lower.
Several members of the Selectboard had expressed concern throughout the budget process that Brandon voters were unclear about their priorities with regard to law enforcement. A non-binding advisory question on last year’s Town Meeting ballot asked voters whether they would like to hire additional officers to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage and the result was roughly 55% in favor to 45% opposed, though the overall budget failed twice because of increases that were deemed too large by a vocal majority of residents.
Mr. Hopkins stated that he and Chief Kachajian had met with the Vermont State Police (VSP) to discuss options for assistance while BPD attempts to restaff. However, VSP made clear that its ability to aid BPD would be limited because of its own staffing shortages.
The Board discussed ways it could try to recruit and retain officers, for whose training the town lays out significant funds, but there was no clear path forward. It was suggested that BPD recruit locally, to ensure ties between officers and the Brandon community. It was suggested that new officers be made to sign contracts pledging a certain number of years of service in exchange for training at the Police Academy, which Mr. Hopkins said was unlikely under the collective bargaining arrangement with the Police Union.
New state ethics rules
The Board discussed the need to appoint an “ethics liaison” and a “designated complaint recipient” (“DCR”) under the state’s new ethics law, Act 171, which took effect on January 1. The Board has until January 31 to make these designations. The purpose of the law is to homogenize ethics policy throughout Vermont so that each municipality doesn’t have its own unique code of ethics.
The liaison would be responsible for communicating between the town and the State Ethics Commission, while the DCR would be responsible for receiving ethics complaints about town officers, employees, boards, committees, etc.
Board member Tim Guiles initially proposed that the Town Manager (currently Seth Hopkins) be designated the liaison while the Board Chair (currently Doug Bailey) be designated the DCR. However, Board member Heather Nelson suggested that the Board wait until its next meeting to make the decision so that they could consider the implications of designating a Board member to potentially receive complaints about the Board.
Attendees also voiced concerns that the appointment of a Board member to be DCR would be a conflict of interest. One attendee even stated that she already had a complaint to report about one of the proposed designees.
Ms. Nelson suggested that the Board ask Town Clerk Sue Gage if she’d be willing to be DCR, though Mr. Guiles pointed out that it was possible that someone could also have ethics concerns about the Town Clerk as well.
Another attendee suggested that the entire Board be designated DCR so that anyone with an ethics complaint could choose to report it to any of its members, avoiding the need to deal with any particular Board member.
Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously to appoint the Town Manager as liaison and the entire Board as DCR.
Town Budget Presentation
The Board chose Thursday, January 30 at 7 p.m. for its presentation to the community regarding the proposed town budget for FY26. The Board will welcome Brandon residents to the main floor of the Brandon Town Hall to explain the details of the budget it will put before voters at Town Meeting in March.
Otter Creek Watershed Insect Control Board
The Board appointed Kerry White to be one of Brandon’s two representatives to the Otter Creek Watershed Insect Control District (OCWICD), which oversees spraying for mosquitos in Brandon, Pittsford, Proctor, Goshen, Leicester, and Salisbury. Ms. White replaces Sharon Stearns, who resigned from the OCWICD in the fall.
The Board also heard from Wayne Rausenberger, Brandon’s other representative to OCWICD. Mr. Rausenberger explained that one of OCWICD’s constituent towns—Salisbury—had voted at its Town Meeting in 2024 to provide its annual payment of $25K to OCWICD but had later submitted a check for only $7,572 for larvicide because, it claimed, OCWICD had not provided full spraying services, which include adulticide, during the 2024 spraying season. The spring and summer of 2024 were unusually wet, and spraying didn’t commence until late in the season. Mr. Rausenberger sought the Board’s guidance as to how OCWICD should proceed. He outlined three options:
- Accept Salisbury’s check for $7,572 as payment but deny adulticide to Salisbury from January to June.
- Demand that Salisbury honor their original commitment and deny adulticide until the balance is paid. Additionally, Salisbury’s reps to OCWICD could be suspended.
- Initiate legal action against Salisbury for full payment.
After some discussion, the Board seemed to cohere behind the idea that Salisbury ought to be compelled to pay its full commitment but that legal action would be very costly and combative. Most Board members seemed to support Option #2: withhold services until the full amount is paid. The Board was concerned that allowing constituent towns to renege on their commitments to OCWICD could jeopardize the entire program.
Warrant
The Board approved a warrant in the amount of $189,386.48 to cover its obligations and expenses.
