Board for Registration of Voters — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-06-02
Time: 18:00

Board for Registration of Voters

 Tuesday, June 2, 2026, 6:00 PM,

Police Department Community Room, 1 North Ave, Burlington, VT, 05401 OR remotely via
 Zoom.




Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93712437108
Meeting ID: 937 1243 7108
1. Call Meeting to Order

2. Agenda
 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

3. Announcements
 Subject 3.1. Judge's Order Dismissing Lawsuit and City Attorney statement
 File Attachments
 1. Decision on Motion 934b6179-fb97-42ab-ba48-4fdd079d599d.pdf

4. Meeting Length

5. Adopt Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Board for Registration of Voters 05052026 Board for Registration of Voters 05052026.pdf

6. Public Forum

7. Clerk's Report

8. Approval of Voter Challenges

9. Communication to City Council re: Board Member Appointments
 Subject 9.1. Jeanne's memo to Board
 File Attachments
 1. May 27 Memo Keller May 27 Memo Keller.docx
10. New Business
  10.1. Transition Plan for New Chair & 2026

11. Adjournment
  11.1. Motion to Adjourn

Board for Registration of Voters

 Tuesday, June 2, 2026, 6:00 PM,

Police Department Community Room, 1 North Ave, Burlington, VT, 05401 OR remotely via
 Zoom.




Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93712437108
Meeting ID: 937 1243 7108
1. Call Meeting to Order

2. Agenda
 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

3. Announcements
 Subject 3.1. Judge's Order Dismissing Lawsuit and City Attorney statement
 File Attachments
 1. Decision on Motion 934b6179-fb97-42ab-ba48-4fdd079d599d.pdf

4. Meeting Length

5. Adopt Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Board for Registration of Voters 05052026 Board for Registration of Voters 05052026.pdf

6. Public Forum

7. Clerk's Report

8. Approval of Voter Challenges

9. Communication to City Council re: Board Member Appointments
 Subject 9.1. Jeanne's memo to Board
 File Attachments
 1. May 27 Memo Keller May 27 Memo Keller.docx


 Page 1 of 15
10. New Business
  10.1. Transition Plan for New Chair & 2026

11. Adjournment
  11.1. Motion to Adjourn




 Page 2 of 15
 Termont Superior Court
 Filed 05/20/26
 Chittenden Unit




VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Chittenden Unit Case No. 25-CV-05286
175 Main Street
Burlington VT 05401
802-863-3467
www.vermontjudiciary.org

WILLIAM OETJEN AND JEFFREY
COMSTOCK,
 Plaintiffs

 DECISION ON MOTION

CITY OF BURLINGTON,
 Defendant


 RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

 This action involves a challenge to Defendant City of Burlington's Board for Registration
of Voters ("BRV"), which is tasked by the City's charter with duties relating to the preparation
and maintenance of its voter checklists. Plaintiffs William Oetjen and Jeffrey Comstock assert
claims for declaratory relief and mandamus against the City of Burlington ("the City" or
"Burlington") based on its failure to appoint them to the BRV pursuant to a request made in
September 2025. The City has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of
the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are represented by Attorneys Brady Toensing,
Esq. and Matthew D. Hardin, Esq. and the City is represented by Assistant City Attorney Erik
Ramakrishnan, Esq. For the reasons discussed below, the City's motion is DENIED as to Rule
12(b)(1) and GRANTED as to Rule 12(b)(6).

 Factual Background

 For purposes of deciding the instant motion, the Court accepts the following facts alleged
in Plaintiff's Complaint and the attached documents as true. The Court makes no finding as to
their accuracy. !

 William Oetjen and Jeffrey Comstock are United States citizens and registered voters in
Burlington. Mr. Oetjen is the Chairman of the Burlington Republican Party and Mr. Comstock is
a member of the Republican party. Burlington's charter provides that the BRV shall perform
certain election-related duties that otherwise would be performed by the Board of Civil Authority


  '
 See Montague v. Hundred Acre Homestead, LLC, 2019 VT 16, § 10, 209 Vt. 514 ("Ona
motion to dismiss, the court must assume that the facts pleaded in the complaint are true and
make all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." (citation omitted)). The Court does not
accept as true "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions."
Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High Sch., 2023 VT 15, q 28, 217 Vt. 611 (quotation omitted).




 Page 3 of 15
in other municipalities. Currently, the BRV is composed of 12 members: five Democrats, four
Progressives, two Independents, and one Republican. In 2021, upon request made by the
Burlington Republican Party Chairman, the Burlington City Council appointed two Republicans
to the BRV who had been proposed by the Party.

 In 2025, one of two Republicans on the BRV resigned and was replaced with a
Democrat. In September 2025, Mr. Oetjen sent a letter requesting that the City appoint Mr.
Comstock and himself to the BRV, pursuant to 17 V.S.A. § 2143. On November 4, 2025, the
City Attorney’s Office replied to Oetjen by email declining his request and explaining that 17
V.S.A. § 2143 does not apply to the BRV.

 On November 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint, seeking (1) a declaratory
judgment that 17 V.S.A. § 2143 applies to the BRV such that they are entitled to be placed on
that board and (2) a writ of mandamus, pursuant to Rule 75, requiring the City to place them on
the BRV.

 Discussion

 “The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the law of the claim, not the facts which
support it.” Powers v. Office of Child Support, 173 Vt. 390, 395, 795 A.2d 1259, 1263 (2002)
(citation omitted). “[W]here the plaintiff does not allege a legally cognizable claim, dismissal is
appropriate.” Montague, 2019 VT 16, ¶ 11 (citation omitted). “Rule 12(b)(1) allows a court to
dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including lack of standing, while Rule
12(b)(6) allows dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Hous.
Our Seniors in Vt. Inc. v. Agency of Com. & Cmty. Dev., 2024 VT 12, ¶ 8, 219 Vt. 80; see also
id. ¶ 9 (explaining that “the former determines whether the plaintiff has a right to be in the
particular court and the latter is an adjudication as to whether a cognizable legal claim has been
stated” (quotation omitted)). When considering a motion alleging both Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) grounds, the Court assumes the truth of the facts alleged, making all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. Id. ¶ 10.

 I. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion.

 The City argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action because they do not
allege that they applied to serve on the BRV before the City Council and Mayor made
appointments to the BRV in August 2025 and they have not exhausted their administrative
remedies. Mot. at 11. The Court disagrees. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint here is the
assertion that 17 V.S.A. § 2143 applies to the BRV and requires that the board have three
Republican members. Plaintiffs allege that they followed the procedure established by § 2143
(discussed in more detail below), and they attach Mr. Oetjen’s September 2025 letter to the City
with their applications seeking appointment to the BRV to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. Pls.’
Compl. ¶ 17. However, Plaintiffs allege that the City improperly failed to appoint them to sit on
the BRV. This is sufficient to allege standing. See Hous. Our Seniors in Vt. Inc., 2024 VT 12,
¶ 13 (“To establish standing, plaintiffs must at an irreducible minimum demonstrate the




 2


 Page 4 of 15
following constitutional elements: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.”
(quotation omitted)). 2 Accordingly, the City’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion is denied.

 II. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion.

 At bottom, this case involves a pure question of law: Does 17 V.S.A. § 2143, which
addresses the composition of the local “board of civil authority” and provides that a major
political party with fewer than three members on the board may compel the governing authority
to appoint additional member(s) for purposes of election activities, apply to Burlington’s Board
for Registration of Voters? Before the Court turns to this question, a brief review of the relevant
statutory provisions concerning Boards of Civil Authority (“BCAs”), as well as Burlington’s
system governing the conduct of elections, provides helpful context and background.

 There is no single definition of a “Board of civil authority” under Vermont law. Rather,
the legislature defines BCAs differently for cities, towns, and villages, and only by reference to
the composition of members. For example, a city’s BCA includes “the mayor, aldermen, city
clerk, and justices residing therein” if not “otherwise provided by municipal charter.” 17 V.S.A.
§ 2103(5). Here, Burlington’s municipal charter states that its BCA is composed of “[t]he City
Council with Mayor presiding.” 24 App. V.S.A. ch. 3 § 43(a)(1) (hereinafter referred to as “City
Charter § __”). The Mayor and the City Councilors are all elected positions. City Charter § 3.

 In addition, BCAs have many statutory duties under Vermont law. For example, the
BCA hears property tax appeals and abatement requests. See 24 V.S.A. § 1533; 32 V.S.A.
§ 4404. As relevant here, BCAs perform a variety of functions relating to elections. Among
other duties, the BCA “shall determine whether any person who has applied to be registered to
vote meets the requirements” set forth in § 2121. 17 V.S.A. § 2146. It “shall have charge of the
conduct of elections within the political subdivision for which it is elected,” id. § 2451(a), and a
“quorum of the board of civil authority shall be available at all times when the polls are open,”
id. § 2451(c). The members of a BCA who are present at a polling place “shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business relating to the conduct of the election and the
qualification and registration of voters at [that] polling place.” Id. § 2451(c).

 Burlington’s charter creates a more complex system for administering elections, and
assigns the typical election duties of the BCA to other boards and official positions. Burlington
is divided into four electoral districts, and each district is comprised of two wards. City Charter
§ 2. Under the charter, each ward has designated ward officers, which consist of a clerk and
three inspectors of election. Id. § 10. Inspectors of election are required to “be present, preside,
and preserve order at all elections in their respective wards, [and] to decide all questions relative
to the right of any person to vote at such election.” Id. § 21. In addition, inspectors of election
are tasked with sorting and counting the ballots and publicly announcing the results. Id. Ward
clerks and inspectors of election are chosen by the legal voters of each ward during the annual


 2
 The Court notes that mandamus review is available under Rule 75 so long as the act or refusal
to act was by a political subdivision of the state and review would have been available under the
extraordinary writ of mandamus prior to the enactment of Rule 75. Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT
72, ¶ 5, 190 Vt. 245.

 3


 Page 5 of 15
City election. Id. § 10(b)(1). A ward’s three inspectors of election “may not be members of the
same political party.” Id. § 10(a)(1). If they are from the same party, “the City Council shall
forthwith appoint an inspector who shall serve instead of the candidate who received the third
largest number of votes.” Id.

 In addition to ward officers and inspectors of election, Burlington created the BRV to
prepare checklists of voters for use in annual or special elections. Id. § 43(a)(1). The BRV
consists of twelve members, and no more than six members “shall at any one time be from the
same political party.” Id. § 43(a)(1)-(2). Members of the BRV serve five-year terms, and
vacancies are appointed by the City’s BCA. Id. § 43(b). Before any such election, “it shall be
the duty of the [BRV] to prepare full and complete lists of the voters in the respective wards or
City districts of said City, and to certify the same to the Chief Administrative Officer.” Id. § 14.
Copies of such lists are publicly posted in advance of the election. Id. The BRV must specify a
time and place when it will meet to make additions to the list of voters, or alterations or
corrections to the list. Id. § 15. True copies of the BRV’s final checklists are delivered to the
inspectors of election in the various wards, and “no person whose name is not on such lists shall
be allowed to vote at any such election.” Id. § 18.

 “When interpreting statutes, the bedrock rule of statutory construction is to determine and
give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Delta Psi Fraternity v. City of Burlington, 2008 VT
129, ¶ 7, 185 Vt. 129 (quotation omitted)). Courts “look at the language of the statute itself” and
“presume the Legislature intended the plain, ordinary meaning of that statute.” Benson v. MVP
Health Plan, Inc., 2009 VT 57, ¶ 4, 186 Vt. 97 (quotation omitted). “If the legislative intent is
not clear on the face of the statute, Vermont courts construe the statute ‘in light of the entire
statutory scheme,’ looking to ‘the statute’s purpose, effects, and consequences.’” Vinson v.
Clark, No. 2:22-cv-00020, 2024 WL 4108524, at *16 (D. Vt. Sept. 6, 2024) (quoting Estate of
Daniels by & through Lyford v. Goss, 2022 VT 2, ¶ 11, 216 Vt. 161). Moreover, “[i]n
construing statutes to give effect to legislative intent, [courts] seek to harmonize statutes and not
find conflict if possible.” Billewicz v. Town of Fair Haven, 2021 VT 20, ¶ 22, 214 Vt. 511
(quotation omitted).

 The statutory provision at the heart of this case is 17 V.S.A. § 2143, which states:

 (a) If the board of civil authority of any political subdivision does not contain at
 least three members of each major political party and the party committee or at
 least three voters request increased representation for an underrepresented major
 political party by filing a written request with the clerk of the political
 subdivision, the legislative body shall appoint from a list of names submitted to it
 by the underrepresented party a sufficient number of voters to the board of civil
 authority to bring the underrepresented major party’s membership on the board to
 three. A person’s name shall not be submitted unless he or she consents to serve
 if appointed.

 (b) The persons so appointed shall have the same duties and authority with respect
 to elections as have other members of the board, but those persons shall have no



 4


 Page 6 of 15
 authority with respect to functions of the board of civil authority that are not
 related to elections.

 Under the plain language of the statute, it applies to the BCA of “any political
subdivision,” which includes cities, towns, and villages. Plaintiffs contend that the BRV is
Burlington’s BCA with respect to election-related matters and that § 2143 requires the BRV to
include at least three members of the Republican Party. Opp. at 1. The City does not dispute
that the Republican Party is a major political party, but it argues that § 2143 does not apply to the
BRV because that section applies only to BCAs, and the BRV is not the City’s BCA. Mot. at 2.
Thus, the question for the Court to answer is whether the BRV is Burlington’s BCA for purposes
of § 2143. The Court concludes it is not.

 Plaintiffs gloss over this question with little analysis, asserting simply that the City is
subject to and must comply with state law. But this simply begs the question as to what Vermont
law requires. As discussed above, Burlington created the BRV under its charter to perform the
BCA’s discrete, election-related task of compiling voter checklists. Its members are appointed
by the BCA. In addition, Burlington has assigned other election-related responsibilities to ward
clerks and inspectors of election, who are selected by the legal voters of each ward. Burlington’s
BCA retains control over and exercises any other duties regarding elections. City Charter §
43(a)(1). Thus, the BRV is not “the BCA” for the City; it is a separate and distinct entity.3

 Plaintiffs do not argue that Burlington lacked the authority to create a separate BRV in its
charter. “Municipalities in Vermont are ‘created by the Legislature pursuant to express authority
conferred by the Constitution’ and their powers are ‘expressly delegated to them by legislative
enactment’ such that they have ‘no rights outside the limits of legislative control.’” Ferry v. City
of Montpelier, 2023 VT 4, ¶ 45, 217 Vt. 450 (quoting Town of Bennington v. Park, 50 Vt. 178,
202 (1877)). The legislature is constitutionally empowered to “grant charters of incorporation,
. . . [and] constitute towns, borroughs, cities and counties.” Vt. Const. ch. II, § 6. Under Dillon’s
Rule, “the power of [a] municipality is limited to what has been granted [to it] by the state.” City
of Montpelier v. Barnett, 2012 VT 32, ¶ 20, 191 Vt. 441. Here, Burlington’s city charter,
together with its amendments, has been approved by the Legislature, and therefore it “has the
force and effect of a statute as it applies to the specified municipality.” Handverger v. City of
Winooski, 2011 VT 130, ¶ 9, 191 Vt. 556 (citation omitted). The Court presumes that if the
Legislature believed that Burlington’s creation of the BRV was impermissible or conflicted with
§ 2143, it would not have granted its approval. See In re O.R.G., 2026 VT 6, ¶ 15 (“We must
presume that all language is inserted in a statute advisedly.” (quotation omitted)); Gallipo v. City
of Rutland, 173 Vt. 223, 235, 789 A.2d 942, 951-52 (2001) (explaining that a court should
“harmonize statutes and not find conflict if possible,” and “should not construe statutes to reach
unreasonable results manifestly unintended by the legislature”); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 363 (Apr.
2026 update) (“Courts presume that the legislature knew the law as it existed when it passed a


 3
 Burlington has done something similar in other contexts, such as creating separate Boards of
Tax Appeals and Abatement of Taxes to exercise the BCA’s duties in those areas. See City
Charter § 42 (providing that the “Mayor, City Council, and assessors shall constitute a Board for
the Abatement of Taxes”), § 92(a) (“The Board of Tax Appeals shall meet, hear, and determine
all appeals in the manner set forth in this section, notwithstanding 32 V.S.A. § 4404.”).

 5


 Page 7 of 15
statute and that the legislature intended the statute to be harmonious and consistent with the
existing body of law.”). 4

 Accordingly, because the BRV is not Burlington’s BCA, there is no conflict between 17
V.S.A. § 2143 and City Charter § 43, nor any need to resort to tools of statutory construction.
See In re Porter, 2012 VT 97, ¶ 10, 192 Vt. 601 (stating that, where the meaning of a statute “is
clear, we enforce the statute according to its terms without resort to statutory construction”).
However, if there were a conflict between the two laws, Burlington’s “more specific city charter
[would] control.” Looker v. City of Rutland, 144 Vt. 344, 347, 476 A.2d 141, 143 (1984). In
Looker, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the Rutland Board of Aldermen lacked the
authority to issue a condemnation order, “because the city charter gives that authority to a Board
of Highway Commissioners.” Id. at 344, 476 A.2d at 142. The Court applied the “established
rule of statutory construction . . . that when two statutes deal with the same subject matter, and
one is general and the other specific, the more specific statute must be given effect unless the
legislature intended the general to control.” Id. at 346, 476 A.2d at 143 (citation omitted). The
Court found that

 19 V.S.A. § 292, giving selectmen the authority to alter highways, is the more
 general legislative provision. In granting to a Board of Highway Commissioners
 in Rutland the ‘same power’ to alter highways ‘as is vested by law in selectmen,’
 the legislature clearly intended the more specific city charter to control over the
 more general statute.

Id. at 347, 476 A.2d at 143. Similarly, here, the more specific provision of the City’s charter
establishing the BRV to exercise responsibility for voter checklists and providing for the political
composition of the board’s members controls over the more general statutory provision of 17
V.S.A. § 2143. See also Town of Brattleboro v. Garfield, 2006 VT 56, ¶ 10, 180 Vt. 90
(resolving conflict between city charter and general statute concerning filling municipal
vacancies, and concluding “that the charter prevails because it is more specific to the Town of
Brattleboro than 24 V.S.A. § 963”). 5

 In sum, the Court concludes that 17 V.S.A. § 2143 does not apply to Burlington’s BRV,
and therefore, no requirement exists that there be a minimum of three members from each major
political party appointed to the BRV. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law, and
the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted.




  4
 Plaintiffs rely heavily on Burlington’s 2021 decision to appoint two Republicans to the BRV
upon request by the Republican party after invoking § 2143. However, statutory construction is
an issue of law for the Court. Thus, the fact that the City previously voluntarily agreed to the
type of relief Plaintiffs are now seeking is not binding on the Court, nor particularly relevant.
 5
 Leaving Plaintiffs’ nod to Shakespeare aside, the argument that Looker is merely about
semantics and therefore supports Plaintiffs’ position is without merit. See Opp. at 8-9.

 6


 Page 8 of 15
 Order

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant City of Burlington’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) (Mot. #1) is GRANTED.

 Electronically signed on May 20, 2026 at 11:38 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).


 ________________________________
 Megan J. Shafritz
 Superior Court Judge




 7


 Page 9 of 15
 BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
  POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY ROOM, 1 NORTH AVE, BURLINGTON, VT, 05401
 OR REMOTELY VIA ZOOM.

 MINUTES OF
 MEETING
 May 5, 2026


1. Call Meeting to Order
Members in attendance: Annie Schneider, Alison Harte, Karen Rowell, Colleen Montgomery,
Michelle Lefkowitz, Janet Stambolian, Jeanne Keller, Grace Grundhauser, Kevin Lewis, Lauren
Ebersol, Lesley Gendron, Adam Franz, Youth Member Will Cunningham

Also present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk

1. Agenda
Karen Rowell made a motion to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Kevin Lewis. Passed
unanimously.

2. Announcements
Annie Schneider said she would be unable to work on Election Day in August.

3. Meeting Length
The meeting was set to end at 7:00.

4. Adopt Minutes
Jeanne Keller made a motion to adopt the minutes. Seconded by Colleen Montgomery. Passed
unanimously.


5. Public Forum
Jill Lesh from the VT League of Women Voters said she was joining to observe.

Melo Grant spoke about the meeting location, stating that when she was on the Police
Commission they had heard from community members about not feeling comfortable meeting at
the Police station. She suggested the board consider an alternate meeting location.

6. Clerk's Report
Sarah Montgomery reported 29,603 currently registered voters. Out of that total number, 6,548




 Page 10 of 15
are challenged. In April, there were 123 new registrations, 29 voters were removed from the
checklist, and 108 voters were transferred to other Vermont towns.

7. Approval of Voter Challenges
The board reviewed the proposed challenge list, which contained 26 voters. Lesley Gendron
made a motion to approve. Seconded by Annie Schneider. Approved unanimously.

8. Political Composition of the Board and Litigation Status
Prior to the meeting, Grace Grundhauser shared a brief comment from the City attorney’s office
with the board via email, which gave a status update on the pending litigation against the City
regarding the composition of the BRV. The statement explained that litigation is still pending
and the court will make a ruling, which will determine the correct interpretation of the city
charter.

Will Cunningham offered to share a summary of the two sides of the litigation.

Jeanne Keller questioned whether it was appropriate to have this discussion since the litigation
is still pending, and the ruling will be coming from the court through the City Council to this
board. She added that she doesn’t think it is the role of board members to be interpreting the
litigation, or trying to influence each other’s opinions.

Karen Rowell said she finds it disheartening that the City is fighting to keep Republicans off of
the board.

Jeanne Keller made a motion to table the discussion about the litigation. Seconded by Janet
Stambolian. Vote called.

Yes: Janet Stambolian, Jeanne Keller, Michelle Lefkowitz

No: Kevin Lewis, Lesley Gendron, Lauren Ebersol, Karen Rowell, Alison Harte, Annie
Schneider

Abstain: Grace Grundhauser, Colleen Montgomery, Adam Franz

Motion to table failed.

Will Cunningham clarified that his intent was just to be informative since this case does pertain
to the board, not to try to persuade one way or the other.

Lauren Ebersol asked if the attorney’s office expected a ruling to happen prior to the
appointments. Grace Grundhauser answered that it is unclear when the ruling will come out.

Jeanne Keller commented that it seems like depending on how the judge rules, the situation
could be rectified in favor of the ruling.

Alison Harte suggested that Will could share the summary via email, and board members could




 Page 11 of 15
read it for their information.

Annie Schneider supported allowing Will to speak.

Lauren Ebersol noted that it is important to understand the situation since it will have
ramifications on the board, especially in advance of the August election.

Will Cunningham summarized the litigation, explaining the City’s defense, and well as the
argument of the plaintiffs.

Annie Schneider asked what would happen if the current two members, who are currently
serving as chair and vice-chair, are not reappointed. She noted that this would mean a loss of a
significant amount of institutional knowledge. Grace Grundhauser noted that she is likely not
reapplying.

Annie Schneider suggested moving onto the next agenda item.

Councilor Melo Grant noted that it was important to have qualified candidates who will support
voters’ rights, regardless of their political party. Members called for a point of order since this
portion of the meeting was not open to members of the public.

9. Communication to City Council re: Board Member Appointments
Kevin Lewis had drafted a communication to City Council after conversations last meeting,
which Grace shared with the board via email prior to the meeting.

Karen Rowell appreciated the draft communication and commented on how well written and
thoughtful it is. She suggested adding a statistic that indicates how many Burlington residents
voted for a Republic in a recent election, to show the political representation of Burlington
voters.

Kevin Lewis responded that the communication was drafted with the spirit of collaboration. He
would hesitate to add language that would encourage them to consider specific parties.

Lauren Ebersol said she thinks it could be helpful to highlight the tri-partisan representation of
the state, rather than explicitly listing percentages, since there is no party registration in VT.

Jeanne Keller noted that she felt adding a statistic would make it feel like the board was giving
the City Council a quota to fill, and thinks the language would make it seem like the board was
supporting one side of the litigation.

Karen Rowell said she was interested in adding that language due to the make-up and attitude of
the council, but is open to it moving forward without that specific language. She would like
collaboration, but feels like with the current make-up of the board, her perspective is often
dismissed. She said that having only one Republican on the board does not represent the make-
up of the city.

Janet Stambolian stated the City Councilors are aware of the existing issues, so the intent of the




 Page 12 of 15
communication should be clear without adding in specifics.

Will Cunningham asked what members thought of Lauren’s compromise, which was to exclude
specific data, but including an acknowledgement that Burlington residents are represented at
multiple levels of government by tri-partisan government.

Colleen Montgomery noted that there are four parties in Vermont. She disagreed with adding
the specific percentages or language speaking to the specific parties and supported the document
as drafted.

Annie Schneider said she appreciated the letter, but is unsure if there will be any impact in
sending it.

Alison Harte said the letter was fair and well written. She asked if the intent was for the board to
make a motion to send the letter tonight, or at the next meeting.

Adam Franz suggested adopting the letter as drafted. He noted that he disagrees with a lot of
what Republicans are trying to do with voting, but does agree that he would be uncomfortable
with being the only person of his party on the board.

Lauren Ebersol made a motion to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. Seconded by Colleen
Montgomery. Passed unanimously.

Jeanne Keller said she would vote against sending the letter to the City Council. She noted that
it is valid to discuss this among the board, but is wary of sending this communication and it
being published on the news, further exacerbating the situation.

Janet Stambolian said the board does represent different parties, but they are also meant to
represent all of the residents are Burlington. Due to this she does not feel like it is the role of the
board to step into a political role.

Grace Grundhauser noted that the board members are not elected officials, they are appointed,
so they are chosen by the city councilors, rather than the voters.

Alison Harte said she does not see the communication as political, or as telling the City Council
how to do their job. The communication is asking for a fair and unbiased appointment process.
She asked if it might make sense to have members who agree with the letter sign it individually,
rather than it coming from the whole board, if the whole board does not support it.

Colleen Montgomery said the letter would not have been written if the board did not have an
issue with how the appointments are made.

Kevin Lewis added that he suggested this letter after hearing Karen’s perspective, but also due
to the partisan process he went through when he was appointed. He said that if a councilor feels
criticized by the letter, it could be an opportunity for them to reflect on the process. He noted
that the letter highlights cooperation and transparency.

Annie Schneider said that the partisan appointment process is how appointments are, and have




 Page 13 of 15
always been, made. If that is the issue the board is trying to address, that is what should be
explicitly said in the letter.

Lauren Ebersol said the board is appointed with their parties listed, so in part at least, it is by
nature a partisan process.

Karen Rowell noted that the City is fighting against having Republicans on the board, and thinks
the letter would help by sending a strong message.

Jeanne Keller said that Karen’s comments prove how the letter is going to be used in order to
advise the Council to add Republicans to the board. She said this letter should not be sent since
it is not appropriate for the board the take a stance on the pending litigation.

Alison Hart suggested tabling the discussion due to the time.

Colleen Montgomery made a motion to extend the meeting. Seconded by Annie Schneider. Vote
called.

Yes: Annie Schneider, Karen Rowell, Lauren Ebersol, Colleen Montgomery, Lesley Gendron

No: Janet Stambolian, Alison Harte, Michelle Lefkowitz, Jeanne Keller, Adam Franz

Abstain: Grace Grundhauser, Kevin Lewis

Motion failed.

Meeting adjourned at 7:15pm




 Page 14 of 15
May 27, 2026

TO: Burlington Board for Registration of Voters
FROM: Jeanne Keller, BRV Member
RE: Communications with City Council Regarding Appointments to BRV

As I will be away and unavailable to attend the June 2 meeting of the BRV, I take this opportunity to
express my opposition to the BRV sending any communication whatsoever to the Burlington City Council
regarding appointments to the BRV.

While I sympathize with the experiences our recent appointees had with the City Council process, I think
the peculiar and particular context of the BRV appointments, due to the pending lawsuit, make it
entirely inappropriate for the BRV to give counsel, to exhort, or to attempt to influence in any way the
City Council appointments process for the BRV this year.

 • Please recall that the City Attorney’s office would not even send a representative to speak with
 us about the appointments process, due to the lawsuit. Any communications the City Attorney
 would have with the City Council about BRV appointments would likely be in Executive Session
 as well. This is a signal to me that any attempt by us to influence the appointments, during the
 pendency of the lawsuit, is inappropriate.

 • As we learned in our discussion at the May BRV meeting, regardless of what each of us may
 intend by supporting a resolution asking for less “horse-trading”, and regardless of the actual
 language of the resolution, one side or the other of the lawsuit can and will use our vote to
 proclaim BRV support for their side of the lawsuit. I don’t believe we should put ourselves in the
 position of being cast (or used) by any of the parties involved in the suit, as siding with one side
 or the other of a lawsuit. It is up to the judicial system to determine the case, not us, and
 indeed, not the City Council.

 • A BRV communication to the Council will certainly become fodder for press coverage, and not
 for the reason that BRV members may have intended. This will, I predict, make the process
 more, not less, partisan, as a result.

Thank you for your service to the City of Burlington.




 Page 15 of 15

BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
 POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY ROOM, 1 NORTH AVE, BURLINGTON,
 VT, 05401 OR REMOTELY VIA ZOOM.

 MINUTES OF
 MEETING
 June 2, 2026


 1. Call Meeting to Order
Grace Grundhauser called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.

Members in attendance: Janet Stambolian, Lauren Ebersol, Lesley Gendron, Grace Grundhauser, Annie
Schneider, Michelle Lefkowitz, Karen Rowell, Kevin Lewis, Colleen Montgomery, and Youth Member
Will Cunningham

Members Absent: Alison Harte, Jeanne Keller, Adam Franz

Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk

 2. Agenda
Grace Grundhauser suggested adding August Election prep under New Business. Karen Rowell made a
motion to adopt the agenda with that addition. Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Passed unanimously.


  3. Announcements
Judge's Order Dismissing Lawsuit and City Attorney statement: Grace Grundhauser said that she found the
ruling of the court really helpful, not just in providing a decision on the litigation, but also in explaining
different election official roles in Burlington. She summarized the ruling, saying that the court agreed with
the City of Burlington and that the ruling could still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Grace Grundhauser also shared that Councilor Bergman did bring forward two resolutions about the board
member appointment process at the previous night’s meeting. She does not know what the results of the
proposed resolutions were, but noted that City Council is also trying to address the issue around the
process of board and commission appointments.

Karen Rowell apologized to the board for sharing incorrect statistics about the demographics of
Republicans in Burlington. It was an unintentional error.

 4. Meeting Length
The meeting length was set to one hour.
  5. Adopt Minutes
Janet Stambolian made a motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by Michelle Lefkowitz. Passed
unanimously.

6. Public Forum
No members of the public present.



 7. Clerk's Report
 Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,573 registered voters in Burlington. Out of that
 total number, 6,423 are currently challenged. In May, 113 new voters registered in Burlington, 89 were
 transferred from Burlington into other VT towns, and 60 were removed from the checklist.

 Sarah also shared that, for the August 11th State Primary Election, voters will not automatically be mailed
 ballots. If they would like to receive a ballot in the mail, they should request one at vote.vermont.gov or
 contact the Clerk’s office at 802-865-7000. Ballots will be available to mail and for early voting in the
 Clerk’s office by 6/29.

 8. Approval of Voter Challenges
 Lesley Gendron made a motion to approve challenging the voters Sarah shared with the board via email.
 Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Passed unanimously.

 9. Communication to City Council re: Board Member Appointments
 Grace Grundhauser explained that this conversation is being picked up from the last meeting, where the
 board ran out of time for discussion. Grace read Jeanne’s memo that was included with the agenda packet,
 which outlined her opposition to the board sending the letter to City Council.

 Karen Rowell said she still thinks sending the letter to City Council is a good idea since she does not want
 to be the only Republican on the board.

 Colleen Montgomery said that Jeanne’s memo is speaking to the content of the previously proposed letter,
 which does not speak to specific party designations on the board.

 Grace Grundhauser asked members to raise their hands before speaking for this conversation to ensure
 everyone has a chance to be heard.

 Lauren Ebersol said she would like to be able to review the resolution that was proposed to City Council.
 She is wondering if the board can do a conditional approval of the letter, where it could be tied to the
 content of the resolution.

 Grace Grundhauser summarized the content of the two proposed resolutions (resolution #1, resolution
 #2), where councilor Bergman proposed updates to the process for board and commission appointments.

 Karen Rowell said that tying the BRV’s memo to the proposed resolutions is making it more complicated
 than it needs to be.

 Janet Stambolian said she isn’t sure that it is the board’s place to be advising City Council.

 Will Cunningham said he doesn’t see the litigation as a roadblock to sending the communication to City
 Council, but he is not convinced that it will change the minds of City Council.

 Annie Schneider agreed and said that all board members can contact city councilors directly if they would
 like to. Communication doesn’t need to come from the full board.

 Lesley Gendron said at the last meeting she started to feel like there were two separate objectives that
 were happening in the letter – one piece was about balancing political representation on the board and the
 other was about not bringing politics into the appointment process. She said because of this she would not
 support sending the letter.

 Kevin Lewis said that his intent was not to impose his personal experiences onto the letter.

 Janet Stambolian said she thinks the resolutions proposed by Councilor Bergman seem to have brought
 forth the relevant points already. Lauren Ebersol said she would be curious to know how those resolutions
 were received by the councilors to gauge if the BRV sending the letter could still have influence.

 Karen Rowell said she will send a letter to the councilors as an individual.

 Grace Grundhauser said she felt proud of the board for having the difficult discussions around this topic in
 a cooperative manner.

 Karen Rowell made a motion to send the letter to the City Council. Seconded by Michelle Lefkowitz.

 Karen Rowell asked if any edits could be made to the letter that would encourage board members to vote
 to send this letter.

 Janet Stambolian suggested seeing what happens for this appointment process, and if needed, the board
 can still weigh in after.

 Vote Called.

 Yes: Karen Rowell
 No: Colleen Montgomery, Janet Stambolian, Annie Schneider, Michelle Lefkowitz
 Abstained: Lauren Ebersol, Grace Grundhauser, Lesley Gendron

 Motion failed.


 10. New Business

 10.1. Transition Plan for New Chair & 2026
Grace Grundhauser shared that this will be her last meeting since she did not apply for reappointment. She
said she will still work on election days and is happy to be available to board members as a resource. Grace
Grundhauser recommended nominating a chair and vice-chair at the July meeting as has been the board’s
custom. Janet Stambolian asked how the elections work for board member positions. Grace Grundhauser
said any member can nominate themselves or another member, another member needs to second the
nomination, and then the board votes.

Lesley Gendron asked if the additional positions that the board made up last year need to be voted on
again. This includes the positions such as parliamentarian, student liaison, language access coordinator,
etc. Grace Grundhauser recommended members look at the July 2025 minutes to review these different
positions.
 10.2. August Primary Prep
Lesley Gendron might be unable to attend the election. Annie Schneider will also be unable to attend.
Sarah Montgomery noted that Adam Franz is running for state representative, which may limit his ability
to work. Lesley Gendron asked if there will be enough members who have trained enough to work solo.
Grace Grundhauser said that members training at 3 elections is ideal, but it is not an absolute requirement.
She shared the proposed schedule:

W1: Colleen Montgomery
W2: Lauren Ebersol
W3: Michelle Lefkowitz
W4: Lesley Gendron
W5: Jeanne Keller
W6: Alison Harte
W7: Karen Rowell
W8: Janet Stambolian

The board discussed pairing less experienced members with more experienced volunteers, so every ward
has a strong team with experience and proper authority to sign. Lauren Ebersol said she will reach out to
previous members soon to secure some experienced help.

Annie Schneider asked members to speak to the comment Councilor Grant had at the last meeting, saying
the police station might not be an inclusive location. Karen Rowell noted that folks also have the option to
join via zoom if they are uncomfortable coming to the police station. Janet Stambolian said she doesn’t
think it matters much since there are rarely members of the public in attendance. Grace Grundhauser
agreed that not many people ever turn up for public comment, but she can imagine City Hall being a more
friendly location to folks who may have experienced an issue at the police station. Lauren Ebersol noted
that there are not a lot of other alternate locations available. She suggested stating on the agenda how to
submit comment without needing to attend the physical location. Colleen Montgomery said if people who
don’t feel comfortable with the location also don’t have internet access, they may still be restricted from
participating. Grace Grundhauser noted that it might be especially relevant because the board manages the
Legal Resident Checklist. Colleen Montgomery asked if there are other meeting location options. Sarah
Montgomery answered that when she previously looked into it, the only options for the 1st Tuesday of the
month at 6:00pm were City Hall or the community room at the police station. Someone suggested looking
at the library spaces, and inquired whether the church would allow the board to use their parking lot during
meetings. Annie Schneider proposed exploring options.


  11. Adjournment
Lauren Ebersol made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Janet Stambolian. Passed unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 7:00pm.