Board for Registration of Voters — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-06-03
Time: 18:00

Board for Registration of Voters

 Tuesday, June 3, 2025, 6:00 PM,

 City Hall, 149 Church Street, 1st Floor 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. Meeting Length
 3.1. Set Meeting Length

4. Adopt Minutes
 4.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Board for Registration of Voters Board for Registration of Voters .pdf

5. Public Forum

6. Clerk's Report

7. Approval of Voter Challenges

8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion)
 8.1. Discuss annual board report to City Council
 File Attachments
 1. FY24 Final Report FY24 Final Report.pdf

9. Board Member Roles
 9.1. Per May meeting discussion, members agreed to bring ideas to June meeting for additional board
 member positions, such as volunteer coordinator, parliamentarian, community outreach, etc.


10. New Business
11. Adjournment
  11.1. Motion to Adjourn

Board for Registration of Voters

 Tuesday, June 3, 2025, 6:00 PM,

 City Hall, 149 Church Street, 1st Floor 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. Meeting Length
 3.1. Set Meeting Length

4. Adopt Minutes
 4.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Board for Registration of Voters Board for Registration of Voters .pdf

5. Public Forum

6. Clerk's Report

7. Approval of Voter Challenges

8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion)
 8.1. Discuss annual board report to City Council
 File Attachments
 1. FY24 Final Report FY24 Final Report.pdf

9. Board Member Roles
 9.1. Per May meeting discussion, members agreed to bring ideas to June meeting for additional board
 member positions, such as volunteer coordinator, parliamentarian, community outreach, etc.


10. New Business

 Page 1 of 11
11. Adjournment
  11.1. Motion to Adjourn




 Page 2 of 11
 BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
 1ST FLOOR, CITY HALL, 149 CHURCH STREET, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 OR VIA
 ZOOM
 MINUTES OF MEETING
 May 6, 2025




1. Call Meeting to Order
1. Call Meeting to Order
Meeting called to order by Chair Grace Grundhauser at 6:01pm

Present: Alison Harte, Grace Grundhauser, Annie Schneider, Lesley Gendron, Lauren Ebersol, Colleen
Montgomery, and Jeanne Keller

Absent: Michelle Lefkowitz, Karen Rowell, Mike McGarghan, Alex Demoly, and Youth member Will
Cunningham

Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk

2. Agenda
2. Agenda
Jeanne Keller made a motion to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Lesley Gendron. Passed unanimously.

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

4. Adopt Minutes
4. Adopt Minutes
Alison Harte made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Motion passed
unanimously.

5. Public Forum
5. Public Forum
No members of the public were present.

6. Clerk's Report
6. Clerk's Report
Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,136 registered voters in Burlington. Out of these,
3,863 have a challenged status. In April, there were 117 new registrations, 97 voters were transferred to
other Vermont towns, and 36 were removed from the checklist. She reported that the launch of the new
Election Management system was pushed back a little bit, but should still be launched in mid-May.

Sarah Montgomery reminded board members that applications for the 4 board seats opening up soon are
due at 4:30pm on May 14th. Appointments are expected to take place at the June 16th City Council meeting.
The newly appointed members will be voting members at the July meeting. The current members who have




 Page 3 of 11
terms expiring in June will still be active voting members during the June meeting. She shared that the July
meeting is also when the board typically holds chair and vice-chair appointments.

Jeanne Keller asked if Sarah had heard anything from the state about the SAVE act and how this would work
in Vermont. Sarah Montgomery answered that the Secretary of State has been very communicative with
clerks about the federal legislation that passed in the House. The sense is that it will not pass in the Senate,
and that if it did, there would still be a lot of logistics to resolve. The core piece of the legislation as
presented is that voters would need to provide proof of citizenship. Jeanne Keller noted that some states are
trying to implement it at the state level, and she asked if anything similar is happening in Vermont. Sarah
answered that she was not aware of anything similar being proposed at the state level in Vermont. She did
note that an executive order was signed that had similar contents to the SAVE act, but that the Secretary of
State has spoken out against that. Jeanne Keller noted that the executive order had no basis in law. Colleen
Montgomery said that she reached out to Senator Welch and Bernie Sanders' offices about the SAVE act and
their office staff said there is no date for it to appear in the Senate, and that if it appeared there, it would
require 60 votes to pass. Sarah said that she would continue keeping an eye on it, and Grace Grundhauser
said that the board should as well.

7. Eligibility Inquiry Process
7. Eligibility Inquiry Process
Grace Grundhauser recapped the discussion from the previous month's meeting: there was a voter in ward
1, who was also working as an assistant election official, who told Colleen Montgomery that he no longer
lived in Burlington, but he still continued to cast his vote in Burlington. Grace Grundhauser asked Sarah
Montgomery what the process is to verify that election workers are still residents in Burlington. Sarah
answered that she checks election workers' voter registration status (verifying they are registered to vote in
Burlington) before they are recommended for appointment, but she does not specifically ask each election
worker if they are still residing in Burlington. Grace asked Colleen if she had spoken to the voter about the
definition of residence and about his intent to return. Colleen does not remember having that specific
conversation. Annie Schneider asked Sarah what the voter told her. Sarah answered that, via email, she
asked him if his residential address for voter registration purposes should still be in Burlington, and he
confirmed that it should. Grace asked Sarah if she provided him with further information about how he could
make that judgment call. Sarah answered that she did not.

Annie Schneider reached out to the Secretary of State's office, who said they were aware of the situation,
and that there wasn't much the board could do. They noted that the board could file a complaint, but it may
not go anywhere. Sarah Montgomery had reached out to them as well, and looked more into the relevant
statute. Sarah shared that there is a portion in statute that outlines that there are only two very specific
reasons that a voter whose name is printed on the checklist can have their eligibility to vote challenged on
election day. These include 1.) if the voter is not who they say they are, and 2.) if the voter has already cast
a vote. Additionally, these challenges can only be made by very specific people - designated political
observers. Otherwise, the law states that the voter's right to vote shall not be challenged if their name is on
the checklist. Sarah Montgomery said that the Assistant Director of Elections at the Secretary of State
recommended that the best course of action in this scenario is for the board to now determine if they want to
challenge the voter. If the board challenges the voter and he responds affirmatively, but the board has
reason to believe that is not the truth, then they can take further action. Jeanne Keller noted that the limited
election day challenge reasons have come up before when discussing voters' citizenship statuses. She noted
that those restrictions are specific to election day, not to action the board can take outside of that.

Grace Grundhauser noted that there are two separate issues with this situation. One is that a voter, who was
potentially ineligible to vote, cast a ballot. This issue is outside the purview of the board. Grace reiterated
that for same-day challenges, the reasons for challenging are very narrow, as well as who can bring that
challenge up. The ward clerk (or their designee) can also refer questions of eligibility, for new voter
applications, to the board.

Annie Schneider asked who has jurisdiction in determining eligibility to vote on election day? Is it the board
or the ward clerk? She referenced a situation where the person was already on the checklist, but no longer
lived at the listed address. Grace Grundhauser said that this is something she has questioned before and has
not had a good answer to. She thinks it is something the board should spend more time looking into. She
noted that workers at the entrance checklist are asking voters to verify their name and address - this is the
opportunity for the voter to make note of any inaccuracies. Annie Schneider asked if the checklist workers
need to ask for the address. Sarah Montgomery answered that they should be. Annie noted that it is done
inconsistently. Other members agreed. Sarah Montgomery will look at the statute and verify to create




 Page 4 of 11
consistency in processes across wards. Jeanne Keller said that if there is ambiguity about these processes
and who determines the final eligibility of voters who are already on the printed checklist, the board should
get guidance from the Secretary of State's office to make a determination. Sarah Montgomery noted that the
question should likely go to our City Attorney's office instead, so they can factor in the City Charter. Jeanne
Keller said that guardrails and consistency across wards need to be in place. Grace Grundhauser said it might
be helpful to look into provisional ballots and if this could be a scenario when they should be used. Lauren
Ebersol noted that in New Jersey they used provisional ballots a lot, for scenarios exactly like this and many
others. Alison Harte asked how provisional ballots work. Sarah Montgomery said that if a voter's eligibility to
vote was questioned, due to potentially having already cast a vote or some other scenario, the voter could
cast a ballot that would not be fed through the tabulator until a resolution was determined. Jeanne Keller
said the determination of who makes the ruling about the validity of that ballot would still need to be
determined in the case of a provisional ballot.

Grace Grundhauser shared the process for the board to remove voters from the checklist per 17 VSA 2150.
This process outlines steps that need to be taken to determine if a voter is eligible to be registered in
Burlington. She highlighted that the Board of Civil Authority (board for registration of voters in Burlington)
can consider a voter's eligibility to vote at any time, but they need to follow the specific procedures set forth
in this section of the statute. This includes attempting to determine the status of voter eligibility, using
official and unofficial records. The board may also designate someone to reach out to the voter personally. If
the board is unable to verify the voter's eligibility to vote in Burlington, the board can vote to challenge the
voter and follow that process.

Jeanne Keller asked if the conversation Colleen Montgomery had with him on election day could be
considered as the inquiry by the board. Grace Grundhauser said yes, except Sarah Montgomery contacted
him after, so that is the more recent communication. Grace Gurndhauser also shared the affirmation of
residence/domicile, which is the form that a challenged voter needs to complete before they are eligible to
vote again. This includes the statutory definition of residency and the definition of perjury. The definition of
residency includes language about the voter's intent. Once a voter is challenged by the board, they are not
able to vote unless they sign this affirmation. Grace noted that the voter's intent could be that he intends to
return to Burlington as his principal dwelling place, but it could also be that it was just more convenient to
vote in Burlington that day. Grace asked Sarah what her conversation with the voter looked like; Sarah
answered that she was updating the voter's mailing address for election pay purposes, and she asked if his
legal address for voter registration purposes should remain in Burlington. The voter confirmed that it should.
The question was not specified to be in relation to the election day incident. Jeanne Keller noted that, based
on the statutory definition of residency, she believes he has lost residency in Burlington, and he should be
challenged and sent a challenge letter.

Grace Grundhauser suggested that one of the board members call him to have an explicit conversation about
residency. Jeanne Keller questioned why they would do more for this voter than they would for any other
voter that the board votes to challenge. She noted that there does not seem to be any ambiguity about the
situation that needs to be resolved before issuing the challenge. Annie Schneider agrees that the board has
grounds to challenge him without further communication. Annie Schneider made a move to challenge this
voter. Seconded by Lesley Gendron.

Discussion: Alison Harte noted that due to the restrictions on challenging a voter's eligibility on election day,
this seems like the correct time to do this.

Grace Grundhauser added that her understanding of the statute is that the board should attempt with
certainty to determine if a voter is eligible to vote before challenging them, which is why she is suggesting
reaching out to the voter. Jeanne Keller said she feels it would be uncomfortable and inappropriate to reach
out to the voter. Lauren Ebersol noted that the board already has first-hand information, based on Colleen's
conversation with him.

Vote called. Grace Grundhauser abstained. The remainder of the present members voted in favor.

8. Approval of Voter Challenges
8. Approval of Voter Challenges
The board reviewed the remaining proposed voter challenges. Sarah Montgomery explained that there were
two tabs on the spreadsheet she sent to the board. One included voters who had sold property that is listed
as their legal address in their voter registration and voters who had voter registration confirmation letters
returned to the clerk's office as undeliverable. The second tab included voters who were mailed ballots for




 Page 5 of 11
the Annual City Election that were returned to the Clerk's office as undeliverable; voters who had
undeliverable ballots, but otherwise voted in the election, were marked by the USPS as temporarily away, or
who changed their voter information after the mailing data was pulled were excluded from the proposed
challenges.

Lesley Gendron made a motion to accept the proposed challenges. Seconded by Jeanne Keller. Passed
unanaimously.

9. New Business
9. New Business
Annie Schneider proposed creating some new positions for board members to help share the workload - to
vote on these when voting for chair and vice-chair. Positions like volunteer coordinator, parliamentarian, etc.
Grace Grundhauser agreed that she really likes this idea and suggested it would also be helpful to have a
designated outreach person as well. She had also considered having a rotating chair, but likes this idea
better. Jeanne Keller asked Grace which items could be delegated to others without compromising the duties
of the chair. Grace answered anything but agenda approvals would be up for grabs. The board members will
come up with ideas to discuss at the June meeting.

Annnie Schneider asked if some sort of outreach for getting high school students registered to vote should be
done before the school year is over. She suggested doing what the board did last year again now - creating
and distributing posters. Lesley Gendron can update those posters. Jeanne Keller will contact some folks
from 3rd act, which is an organization who might be able to help with voter registration drives.

Grace Grundhauser announced that Alex Demoly will not be reapplying for a new term when his expires.

Colleen Montgomery asked about membership and noted that Mike McGarghan has been absent for several
meetings. This has been discussed previously by the board. Grace Grundhauser said that attendance
expectations could be added as a future agenda item or that board members could always make a motion to
recommend another member's removal to City Council.

10. Adjournment
10. Adjournment
Lauren Ebersol made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Annie Schneider. Passed unanimously.




 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11
Sarah Montgomery

From: Annie Schneider <anniecschneider@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Sarah Montgomery
Subject: Approval of BRV Annual Report



[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


Hi Sarah,

I approve the contents of the BRV Annual Report for the fiscal year 2024.

Thanks,
Annie




 1


 Page 10 of 11
Sarah Montgomery

From: Michael Mcgarghan
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Sarah Montgomery
Cc: Grace Grundhauser
Subject: Re: BRV Annual Report FY24



Sarah,

With couple exceptions, I agree with this report.

I do not agree with #4 as this activity is more partisan than should be for official board duties.

I believe the board is less effective than it could be to do a better job than we currently do.

In my opinion, there should have been a written mention / acknowledgement of the superior support we recieve
from your office to help us do our job.

Otherwise, I allow my name / signature to be included on this report.



Respectfully,



Michael McGarghan,
Board of Registration of Voters
(802) 233-1238



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

From: Sarah Montgomery <smontgomery@burlingtonvt.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:12:24 AM
To: Michael Mcgarghan <mmcgarghan@burlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: BRV Annual Report FY24

Hi Mike,

Can you please reply to this email indicating your agreement with the attached annual board report for the Board for
Registration of Voters?

Thank you,
Sarah


 1


 Page 11 of 11

BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
 CITY HALL, 149 CHURCH STREET, 1ST FLOOR OR REMOTELY VIA ZOOM.

 MINUTES OF MEETING
 June 3, 2025




1. Call Meeting to Order
1. Call Meeting to Order
Meeting called to order by Chair Grace Grundhauser at 6:00pm

Present: Alison Harte, Grace Grundhauser, Michelle Lefkowitz, Karen Rowell, Colleen Montgomery, Lesley
Gendron, Alex Demoly, Lauren Ebersol, Annie Schneider

Absent: Mike McGarghan, Jeanne Keller, Youth Member Will Cunningham

Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk

2. Agenda
2. Agenda
Colleen Montgomery made a motion to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Michelle Lefkowitz. The motion
passed unanimously.

3. Meeting Length
3. Meeting Length
The meeting length was set to one hour.

4. Adopt Minutes
4. Adopt Minutes
Alison Harte made a motion to adopt the minutes. Coleen Montgomery seconded. Passed unanimously.

5. Public Forum
5. Public Forum
No members of the public were present.

6. Clerk's Report
6. Clerk's Report
Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,124 registered voters in Burlington. Out of those,
5,035 are challenged. In May: 140 new voter registrations were processed, 86 voters were removed from the
checklist, and 97 voters were transferred out of Burlington into other Vermont towns. Sarah noted that the
larger number of purges reflects responses to challenge letters and also a high volume of out-of-state
notifications.

Sarah Montgomery reported that the new election management system is now active. The state hasn't made
all the anticipated functionality live yet, but all the data has been successfully transferred, and the voter
registration is working well. The state is continuing to solicit feedback from clerks and make updates as
necessary. Sarah will ensure that all members receive information to activate their new accounts and will
share the voter portal link (vote.vermont.gov).

Sarah Montgomery reported that four residents applied for the four seats that were open for applications on
the board. Appointments are expected to take place at the 6/16 City Council meeting. Colleen Montgomery
asked if this is the usual level of interest that is received. Sarah answered that sometimes there are more
applicants than available seats - it seems to depend on how much advertising the board does for the
vacancies. Grace Grundhauser asked if the agenda packet for the 6/16 City Council meeting has been posted
yet. Sarah Montgomery answered no, but the appointment selection committee agenda has been posted,
which includes the applicants' applications.


7. Approval of Voter Challenges
7. Approval of Voter Challenges
Colleen Montgomery asked if one of the names on the challenge list was the voter the board discussed at the
prior meeting. Sarah Montgomery answered no and that the board had already voted to challenge him at the
last meeting. The Clerk's office has not received a response to that challenge letter. Alison Harte asked what
no response means. Sarah answered that if a voter does not respond to a challenge letter, they will remain
challenged on our checklist for two general elections and only after that can the board vote to remove them.

Grace Grundhauser asked if there is a reason there are voters on the list based on the undeliverable Annual
City Election ballots, rather than having them included with the large batch last month. Sarah Montgomery
answered that these were returned to our office by the USPS within the past month.

Grace Grundhauser asked if it would be helpful to present more data with these challenged voter lists. The
board would like the voter's address and ward included in the data. Sarah Montgomery agreed that her office
can provide the board with that data moving forward.

Lesley Gendron made a motion to challenge the listed voters. Seconded by Karen Rowell. Passed
unanaimusly.

8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion)
8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion)
Grace Grundhauser shared the FY24 Annual Report that the board submitted to City Council. She noted that
the board would discuss the report at this meeting and approve a final copy at the July meeting. Grace
outlined the structure and content of the report as it was submitted last year.

Grace Grundhauser asked for feedback from the board about what should be included in the report for FY25.

Alison Harte noted that since she has been on the board, they haven't done voter registration drives.

Lesley Gendron said there was the poster creation and distribution to encourage voter registration. She
added that the creation of the procedural flow chart could be included.

Alison Harte asked if the turnover from the previous fiscal year was unusual. Grace Grundhauser answered
that she thought it was.

Lauren Ebersol noted the board's strong training program and strong work around volunteer recruitment.

Colleen Montgomery noted that the polling places on Election Day were quieter than expected, likely due to
increased early voting. Alison Harte noted that the decrease of in-person voting has changed the role of BRV
members.

Alison Harte suggested including the number of All Legal Resident voters.

Grace Grundhauser noted that in ward 8, she has seen an increased volume in helping homeless voters with
registration. She asked other members if they had this same experience. The majority of members have not
seen an increase, but agreed sharing information in the report could be helpful.

Lauren Ebersol asked if something should be reported about the student voter population, and the volume of
address changes and registration updates that go along with this.

Grace Grundhauser will draft a revised report and share it with the board for approval next month.

9. Board Member Roles
9. Board Member Roles
The board discussed different roles that members could fill to help alleviate some of the work of the chair.

Suggestions included a parliamentarian (someone to ensure meeting rules), a volunteer coordinator
(coordinate volunteers around elections), and an outreach coordinator.

Lesley Gendron suggested someone to manage the guides and procedures; Grace Grundhauser suggested
calling it Guidance Authority.

Annie Schneider suggested that the outreach person could coordinate events and ensure a presence at
certain events. Colleen Montgomery said this seems like something all members should always be thinking
about. Grace Grundhauser agreed that all members should be thinking about it, but it could be helpful to
have someone actually do the work. Colleen Montgomery said that some of these roles could be better
assigned ad hoc, as events pop up, etc. to cater to specific skills. She noted that, for example, volunteer
coordination alone does not seem to necessitate a whole role. Lauren Ebersol suggested that some items
could be combined into one position for items that wouldn't necessarily fill a whole role. Annie Schneider said
the roles don't need to be formally elected, but having a person/ people assigned specifically might help
ensure that attention is specifically given to that item. Colleen Montgomery said outreach seems well suited
to a committee. Alison Harte said it could be helpful to add outreach or events as a standing item on the
agenda so it is continually discussed. Lauren suggested adding something like a committee report item to the
agenda, where assigned members could report on their specialized areas. Grace Grundhauser is leaning
toward having the specified roles. It wouldn't bar anything else from working on that item, but it would help
provide accountability for those items.

Grace Grundhauser suggested a member doing outreach specifically to residents whose first language is not
English. Karen Rowell added that outreach should also be done on platforms besides Front Porch Forum.
Lauren Ebersol asked if there is any funding available through the City to help with translation or
interpretation. Sarah Montgomery answered that it would likely depend on the project and if existing
materials could be used. Alex Demoly suggested working through existing channels to see who we can
partner with for language access, such as AALV, the King Street Center, or the state's refugee resettlement
offices. Grace added that Michelle Lefkowitz had previously suggested attending naturalization ceremonies
for voter registration outreach. Grace added that if a role was created to focus on these specific outreach
connections, the person could explore these items further. This role could also be assigned to better
understand and educate the board about legal resident voting logistics and implications.

Grace Grundhauser also suggested a student liaison role, to do outreach to college students and increase
communications to this population. Lauren Ebersol agreed that this would be important because she has
heard scenarios where students are receiving inaccurate information. Lauren suggested the existing UVM
community engagement forum as another avenue to make these connections.

Grace Grundhauser suggested that nominations for these roles happen at the next meeting. Lauren Ebersol
suggested having a set list of positions. Grace Grundhauaser agreed to create a proposed list. The board
doesn't need to be limited by the proposed list and the listed positions don't all need to be nominated for, but
it will reflect the ideas already generated.

10. New Business
10. New Business
Colleen Montgomery asked if board expectations would be discussed at the July meeting when new members
have come on board. Grace Grundhauser said that if board members want to add an agenda item to the
agenda, they should make a motion to add it to a future meeting agenda.

Colleen Montgomery made a motion to add a discussion about board member expectations to the July
agenda. Alison Harte seconded. Passed unanimously.

Alex Demoly said it has been a pleasure to serve on the board. He encouraged the board to recruit young
people moving forward - to help young people who are interested in governance, not politics, have this
education and experience.

11. Adjournment
11. Adjournment
Lesley Genfron made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Passed unanimously.