Court Opinion

ID: 9541058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:19.928558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:29.130006
License: Public Domain

Peck, J.,
concurring. I agree with the result reached in this case. I write separately for the sole purpose of objecting to the Court’s reliance on In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580, 563 A.2d 613 (1989). I dissented strongly in that case, primarily on the grounds that the “active” control required by the majority opinion itself was not present, and the incidents which the Board and the majority of this Court relied on for that purpose did nothing of the kind.
The opinion in this case recites those incidents at some length. Since I believe my dissent more than refuted the majority claim, that these incidents demonstrated the slightest degree of active control, time constraints militate against a rehash of the dissent. The majority opinion and the accompanying dissent have been issued and are available for examination.
In this case, however, the element of active control, while thin at best, appears at least minimally adequate to sustain the Board and its order. That being so, reliance on Vitale, is unnecessary. The case approved amending legislation by Board rule; reliance thereon may well embolden the Board to test the outer limits of its jurisdiction even further. I am, therefore, disappointed that the Court’s opinion has seen fit to perpetrate the egregious result reached in Vitale, particularly since it is not necessary to do so in order to reach the end result here.