The Village of Woodstock has agreed to restore Joe Swanson back as police chief, but, for now, won’t let him do his official duties.
The village trustees, upon further review of the latest court ruling by the state judge who heard Swanson’s demotion appeal, decided the veteran lawman should be restored to his old rank as Woodstock Police Chief.
Burlington attorney Brian Monaghan, who represents the village trustees, said the move was proper in light of the written decision by Judge H. Dickson Corbett on Dec. 2.
It would be inappropriate to keep Swanson in the position of patrol officer, Monaghan wrote in an email to his lawyer, Linda Fraas, last Friday.
“It is appropriate to return him to the precise position he was in prior to the trustees’ April 17, 2025 decision in this matter,” Monaghan wrote.
That was the day the village trustees issued their ruling upholding the demotion that municipal manager Eric Duffy had ordered on Feb. 23.
The reinstatement means Swanson will now be paid at his Woodstock Police Chief rate and not as a patrol officer after his demotion.
But it appears Swanson won’t be getting all his retroactive back pay as chief.
“Mr. Swanson’s pay will be restored to his appropriate pay as Police Chief beginning as of Dec. 2, 2025 on a going-forward basis through the hearing and decision in this matter,” he said.
Monaghan said the village also wants Swanson to stay away from work and employees.
Sgt. Chris O’Keeffe, who was appointed by Duffy as interim chief in April, will continue in that role.
The village officials had said earlier they planned to have a second demotion hearing in March or later to consider Swanson’s appeal and to try to address the failures to follow the law that Judge Corbett had noted.
The trustees now want to move up Swanson’s hearing to Tuesday, Jan. 27 and possibly Wednesday, Jan. 28, but that appears in serious jeopardy.
Swanson, expecting his hearing in late March, had scheduled back surgery for this week, Fraas said in her response to Monaghan. The surgery date was picked before the proposed change by the trustees, she said.
The back surgery stems from a prior worker’s comp injury, she said. Swanson sustained serious injuries during an on-duty police shootout 3½ years ago and his rehab sessions have continued.
“We will have to await his doctor’s clearance allowing him to sit for the extended period required for a hearing. This will not occur by Jan. 27, 2026,” she wrote.
“When Chief Swanson is medically cleared to participate, the hearing must be limited to reasonable hours on subsequent days as necessary as it will not be possible for Chief Swanson to sit for a 14-hour marathon hearing like the last one,” Fraas noted.
Fraas said she also expects the village to pay Swanson in full for his reduced wages between the unlawful demotion on April 17 and the judge’s order on Dec. 2.
In other court action:
Burlington attorney John Klesch, on behalf of the village, filed an objection last week in Vermont Superior Court to a request by Swanson to resume his separate $5 million lawsuit against the village, Duffy, O’Keefe, Seton McIlroy, the chair of the village trustees.
The civil lawsuit was put on hold in August while the two sides fought over the appeal on the demotion ordered by Duffy.
Fraas wants the civil lawsuit to resume because she claims the judge has indicated the case favored Swanson. Klesch says he does not see it that way.
In his filing, he said Fraas noted the “Court concurred with the Plaintiff that the Village of Woodstock erroneously and unlawfully ‘demoted’ him, thus evidencing the merit of — and eventual successful verdict in — this instant litigation.”
Klesch said the court did not use those words, but noted “it would be premature for this court to declare an outcome to this case. All this court is deciding is that the trustees must find cause before removing the village police chief from office.”
He said the judge also noted, “on remand, the trustees will have to decide whether to pursue further removal proceedings and how to handle petitioner’s employment duties in the meantime.”
He added that Judge Corbett also explained, “It is important for decisions about police department supervision to be made not by this court, but rather by the village officials who have been elected and appointed for that purpose.”
In another filing, Fraas also has sought to recover $4,534 in various expenses, including the professional stenographer that she says she had to hire because the village refused to provide one for the 14 ½ hour marathon appeal hearing. The bill also covers copies of exhibits ordered by the village, the filing fee for the appeal and the appeal to be served on the village.
Fraas stated that state law makes clear the village should have provided a stenographer. She cited the Vermont law that notes, “In hearings before a commission, department or other quasi-judicial proceedings, such tribunal shall hire stenographic reporters for the purpose of making verbatim reports of the proceedings when one of the parties so requests in writing.”
The village responded by filing an objection through attorney Zachary Handelman, who works with Klesch. Handelman maintained the request for reimbursement was premature because the proceedings are still ongoing. He said Swanson should not be considered as the prevailing party because the fight is still ongoing.
Fraas countered in a separate filing that the village’s effort to argue that Swanson did not prevail “is intentionally deceptive, disingenuous, and mistaken as a matter of law.”
She said Judge Corbett ruled in favor of Swanson, saying the court held the “reasoning is not correct” by the village trustees.
She went on to cite the judge’s ruling 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 said the original appeal was over and the judge sent it back to the village to determine whether it would try for a new removal process.
For more on this, please see our Dec. 24 edition of the Vermont Standard.
