By Mike Donoghue, Senior Correspondent
Demoted Woodstock Police Chief Joe Swanson has asked a state judge this week to order the village to comply with state law and judicial orders from his case in Vermont Superior Court.
Swanson, who was placed on paid administrative leave again, continued his fight this week to be reinstated as the police chief for the Village of Woodstock with his latest filing in Vermont Superior Court.
Among other things, Swanson wants the village to resume paying him at his contracted rate he received when serving as police chief. He also is seeking back pay “during the time he was unlawfully demoted.”
Swanson also is requesting the court to protect his due process rights as the village tries to block him from returning as police chief.
Swanson maintains the village’s actions, including reclassifying him as a patrol officer, reducing his pay and denying back pay during the demotion “violate clearly established legal rights which are not discretionary.”
The latest motion by Swanson this week is a legal request known as a “writ of mandamus,” which is seeking the court to command an action often times by a government official or entity.
Burlington lawyer John Klesch, who represents the Village of Woodstock, said Tuesday afternoon he was aware of the latest filing made by Swanson’s lawyer, Linda Fraas of Manchester, N.H.
Klesch said he had not had time to read the filing, which is more than 50 pages, including exhibits. He said a written response will be made to the court.
Trustee chair Seton McIlroy told the Vermont Standard last week that her board held another private deliberative session after the judge ruled. She said the village is planning to conduct another demotion hearing in March at the earliest.
Municipal manager Eric Duffy, who ordered the demotion, did not respond to voice and text messages from the Vermont Standard.
Duffy was scheduled this week for public interviews in Winchester, Mass. where he is one of three finalists for the post of town manager.
Fraas said Judge H. Dickson Corbett was clear in his findings in the Rule 75 appeal that the village trustees failed to follow the law when they considered the demotion. Now, Fraas filed a new Rule 75 request.
“Contrary to the clear language of this Court’s final judgment in a prior Rule 75 action reversing Respondent’s unlawful demotion of Petitioner, Respondent unlawfully insists upon keeping Petitioner in a patrol officer status with patrol officer pay,” Fraas wrote.
She now wants the village to respect the judge’s ruling.
Fraas noted Swanson began as a part-time officer in Woodstock in 2000, later moved up to fulltime status and was promoted to corporal in 2013. He served as a sergeant from 2014 to July 2023, when Duffy named him police chief after a national search.
Things went smoothly for over a year, but Duffy placed Swanson on paid administrative leave on Oct. 15, 2024 and demoted him on Feb. 23 after hiring a private detective to interview police employees and town emergency dispatchers.
Some mentioned they were not happy that the chief had a messy office, wore non-matching socks and had messy hair. They also said the chief did not tell employees where he was going when he left the police station and didn’t always answer his cell phone.
The village trustees heard Swanson’s appeal during a 14.5-hour marathon hearing on March 19. The trustees announced on April 17 that they would uphold Duffy’s decision.
Fraas then filed the police chief’s appeal in Vermont Superior Court on May 7, claiming an abuse of governmental authority based on the village’s unlawful demotion of Swanson that was “contrary to established contract and employment law.”
While the case was pending, Judge Corbett issued a preliminary injunction on Aug. 7 to block the village from hiring a permanent police chief. Sgt. Chris O’Keeffe remains the interim chief.
Judge Corbett ruled on Dec. 2 a final judgment on Swanson’s appeal and concluded the village “failed to apply the correct standard of ‘just cause’ for removal of its Police Chief.”
In this week’s filing, Fraas added, “This court stated that because the trustees did not make their decision according to the correct legal standard, the April 17th decision of the village trustees is reversed.”
Fraas has maintained the village and Duffy did not have “just cause” and now are trying to use “just because” as the excuse.
“This Court’s reversal of the unlawful demotion was deemed a ‘final judgment,'” Fraas wrote this week.
She went on to say she sent a note on Dec. 2 to Burlington lawyer Brian Monaghan, who served as the hearing officer and legal counsel for the village trustees. She asked for the proper reinstatement to chief with back pay from the time of the demotion.
Swanson received the court order while on vacation and wrote to the department about 3:42 p.m. Dec. 2 that the demotion had been reversed and he was coming back as chief, Fraas wrote.
Klesch wrote back to Fraas about 70 minutes later that Duffy planned to send an email to the department that he still considered Swanson a patrol officer.
The two sides continue to have a spat, but in her filing Fraas wrote that the village’s “actions constitute abuse of governmental authority as a matter of law.”
She also maintains the village’s “refusal to award Swanson back pay is unlawful.”
Fraas said she remains deeply concerned that Woodstock unlawfully intends to allow the village trustees, who are or have been named as defendants in Swanson’s $5 million improper discharge civil suit to help adjudicate future termination proceedings.
