By Mike Donoghue, Senior Correspondent
Woodstock municipal manager Eric Duffy has placed demoted Police Chief Joe Swanson on paid administrative leave once again as the village continues its legal fight to try to justify his removal.
Duffy sent a two-page letter to Swanson on Friday explaining his decision and ordering him to surrender his firearm(s), police identification, building keys, vehicle and badge until further notice.
The move came three days after a Vermont judge issued a ruling that said Superior Court was reversing the decision made by the Woodstock Village Trustees in April to uphold an order by Duffy to demote Swanson from police chief to patrol officer — the lowest rank in the department.
Although the actions taken during the past week have left many unanswered questions, including why Swanson was placed on leave and what rate of pay he will receive, Duffy declined comment Tuesday when reached by the Vermont Standard. Duffy and other village officials have pretty much remained tight-lipped since the case began except during official proceedings.
Attempts to reach attorney John Klesch, who represents Duffy and the village, were unsuccessful this week.
Seton McIlroy, chair of the village trustees, also did not respond to phone and text messages by the Standard’s press deadline.
Interim Police Chief Chris O’Keeffe declined comment as well.
Attorney Linda Fraas, who represents Swanson, told the Standard this week she was disappointed to learn that the village trustees plan to hold a second demotion hearing. The village said it would not be before March, at the earliest, and Fraas said it was unclear why the village was delaying the hearing.
The first demotion hearing for Swanson turned into a 14.5-hour marathon session on March 19. The trustees issued their ruling a month later supporting Duffy’s decision as manager.
Superior Court Judge H. Dickson Corbett later ruled that the village trustees had failed to properly follow the law.
Fraas repeated this week a claim she made in the past that village officials failed at proving “just cause” under the law and now they are looking to remove Swanson “just because.”
She said in an email to Klesch last week, “I do not understand what part of the word ‘reversed’ the village does not comprehend. The Court’s decision is absolute and unequivocal. As of Dec. 2, 2025, the illegal demotion of Chief Swanson is reversed.”
She then included a photocopy of the “Final Judgement Order” from the court.
Judge Corbett wrote in the final order, “Based upon the separate written decision of the court, the April 17, 2025 decision of the village trustees is reversed and the case is remanded to the village trustees for further proceedings.”
Fraas said Tuesday the village still has failed to tell her whether Swanson, while on leave, will continue to be paid at the rate of a patrol officer, or returned to his former pay as Woodstock Police Chief.
Fraas said she is asking the court to hold Woodstock in contempt of court for ignoring the reversal order. She also has asked the court to affirm that the village “is not entitled to keep Swanson in his ‘demoted’ position at a ‘demoted’ pay rate where this Court reversed the unlawful demotion.”
She also asked for an order prohibiting the village from representing to anyone that Swanson is no longer chief pending any final decision by the village regarding Swanson’s employment status based on just cause principles.
She also asked for the village to pay attorney’s fees for the work incurred in connection with filing the extra court papers.
Duffy, in his letter to Swanson, directed him to surrender all his police gear to Woodstock Patrol Sgt. Gary Salvatore.
Duffy also told Swanson he must remain in the area, but stay away from work. Swanson needs to obtain permission to leave the area during his regular work period, Duffy wrote.
It appears to be an identical letter Duffy used when he first placed Swanson on paid leave in October 2024 when the chief’s husband was involved in a motor vehicle incident.
The Vermont State Police and the Vermont Criminal Justice Council both cleared Swanson, but Duffy brought in a private detective to interview employees about the chief’s management style. At the hearing, Duffy said several police employees and town dispatchers complained Swanson had a messy office, unkept hair, unmatched socks and didn’t always wear his uniform. They complained he did not tell them where he was going when he left the police station and did not always answer their phone calls.
It went downhill from there with the demotion by Duffy in February, the appeal to the trustees in March and their decision in April. The judge rejected efforts by Duffy to hire a permanent police chief during the summer and reversed the trustees’ decision this month.
Besides the appeal, Swanson has filed a separate $5 million civil lawsuit against Duffy, O’Keefe, McIlroy, the village and the private detective, Bill Burgess of Lebanon, N.H. While McIlroy as chair remains a defendant, the judge dropped the other four village trustees from the lawsuit.
That case has been on hold while the appeal on the demotion was considered.
Fraas, in an email to Klesch last week, also questioned the lawyer about continuing to represent Duffy, the village and McIlroy.
Fraas and Klesch had exchanged emails in recent days. She noted in one email since Corbett’s “final judgment reversing Chief Swanson’s unlawful demotion” that he indicated that he intends “to continue to advocate for the interests of your client Manager Duffy with regard to future actions that the Village may take regarding Chief Swanson’s employment. You are taking this position despite the fact that the interests of Manager Duffy and your other current clients — the Village, Sgt. O’Keeffe, and trustee Seton — create significant conflicts of interest in this context.”
She added, “You also indicated that you see no reason that you should not be able to represent Manager Duffy in any future proceedings which would involve attempting to persuade and influence your own current and former clients who will be the decision makers.”
She maintains village officials have conspired to demote Swanson and promote O’Keeffe.
“Since the initiation of actions against Chief Swanson in October 2024, Manager Duffy has been focused upon removing Chief Swanson from his chief position at all costs in order to install Sgt. O’Keeffe as chief. In attempting to do so, Manager Duffy, with the assistance of counsel, has consistently and flagrantly disregarded and violated basic tenets of public employment law,” she wrote.
“Presumably, at least theoretically in accordance with fiscal, ethical and legal duties, the Village (acting through its trustees) has a conflicting interest to abide by the law and to refrain from removing its chief without evidence of just cause for termination as defined by Vermont precedent.”
She told Klesch, “Manager Duffy, with your assistance, continues to act contrary to law as reflected in your latest email indicating that if it is up to Manager Duffy ‘he would be willing to place Mr. Swanson on paid administrative leave with current patrol pay and benefits while the remand is pending.'”
“This is a ridiculous proposition in light of the fact that there was never any lawful authority for Chief Swanson to be placed in the position of patrol officer with reduced pay in the first instance,” she said.
“It ignores the reality that the demotion is reversed because it was unlawful to take this action. Your endorsement of Mr. Duffy’s ongoing unlawful actions, such as denying him chief status and keeping him at reduced patrol officer pay, puts your Village client at further risk and is therefore contrary to the Village’s interests. The fact that the Village has also adopted this unlawful position per the email today from Attorney Monaghan does not eliminate the conflict,” she wrote.
After the court decision, village officials were unhappy that Swanson sent a note to the employees indicating that the judge ruled in his favor and he was back as police chief.
Klesch said, in an email to Fraas, Duffy did issue a department-wide notice that O’Keeffe remains the Interim Chief until further notice from the manager.
Klesch maintained “the Court expressly said its decision did not reinstate Mr. Swanson to the position of Chief. All of Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary are thus meritless.”