By Mike Donoghue, Senior Correspondent
Woodstock Municipal Manager Eric Duffy, who has been trying to demote Police Chief Joe Swanson since last spring, now says he wants the veteran officer fired from the village department.
Duffy, in a letter dated Monday, said he now believes he wants to proceed with trying to dismiss Swanson, 45, and bypass the demotion effort.
Swanson’s lawyer, Linda E. Fraas, told the Standard she plans to continue the fight to get Swanson back to full duty as police chief. Fraas said she wants to contest efforts to demote Swanson and also Duffy’s new plan to attempt to fire him as a longtime village employee.
Duffy makes it clear in his letter that he does not want Swanson back working for Woodstock and said he doesn’t plan to offer him a hearing to contest his dismissal.
“You have contended that you cannot be demoted from the position of Police Chief under any circumstances, which can only mean that you must be fired in order to be removed from the position of Chief,” Duffy wrote.
“I disagree that is correct but, since that is what you contend, this letter additionally serves as notice of my determination that the same grounds which support removing you from the position of Chief and terminating your employment agreement also support dismissing you from employment with the Village,” the manager wrote.
“Please note that I view it as unnecessary that I provide you an opportunity to be heard by me on any grounds for removal and termination of your employment agreement which were not previously covered in the January 10, 2025, notice, the February 20, 2025, notice, or in the March 19, 2025, hearing,” Duffy added.
“The reason is that evidence of any such additional grounds would be presented in a remand hearing, and would not result in removal from office or termination of the employment agreement until after such a hearing occurs. There is therefore no due process requirement that I hold a ‘Loudermill’ hearing with you on any such additional grounds prior to the Trustees holding a remand hearing,” he wrote.
A Loudermill hearing is part of the “due process” requirement that public employees are entitled to receive before being disciplined. The purpose of a Loudermill hearing is to provide an employee an opportunity to tell their side of the story before discipline is imposed by the employer.
“Please let me know if you disagree,” Duffy said in signing off from the letter.
Fraas does.
“I want to make it clear that Chief Swanson does not waive any due process rights to Loundermill notice of all charges against him to prepare for his defense,” she wrote to attorney Brian Monaghan, who represented the trustees at the earlier demotion hearing.
Attempts by the Vermont Standard to reach Duffy for a comment were unsuccessful.
Fraas said she has multiple questions that remain unanswered by Duffy, the village, and their lawyer, John Klesch of Burlington.
Klesch also did not respond to the Standard about his plans to continue the fight.
Duffy said in his letter that he may bring additional charges against Swanson for the next disciplinary hearing, including items that had been previously known before the first demotion, but were not used. He also wants to use some items that have happened since Swanson was demoted. They include Swanson:
- Not reporting a motor vehicle incident involving his husband Nicholas “Nico” Seldon and a second driver in the village immediately in October 2024 that he was off-duty and present for.
- Reportedly pointing his finger at O’Keeffe, raising his voice and swearing when asked if he was walking his dog in uniform on Aug. 14, 2025.
- Sending an email to Duffy on Aug. 18, 2025 to claim O’Keeffe mishandled a case.
Fraas, in her response to Monaghan, said the final two items would have happened when Swanson was unlawfully demoted.
“Manager Duffy inexplicably and without any legal foundation takes the position that somehow additional just cause for termination arises from allegations that Chief Swanson was (a) insubordinate to a superior and (b) did not follow the chain of command when reporting concerns about Sgt. O’Keeffe’s handling of an investigation to him rather than first addressing them with Sgt. O’Keeffe…,” she wrote.
The case was a complaint involving two students reported at Woodstock Union High School that O’Keefe initially fielded, and reportedly failed to secure video from the school before passing the investigation to Swanson, Fraas has maintained.
“It is unclear how, as a matter of law, Chief Swanson could be deemed insubordinate to a lesser ranked officer while working in a position that he should never have been put into in the first place during a time when he remained chief (albeit unlawfully removed),” Fraas wrote.
Fraas, who is from Manchester, N.H., has been recruited to become a partner in the Woodstock law firm previously known as Shillen Mackall Seldon & Spicer, attorney Dennis Shillen confirmed for the Vermont Standard on Tuesday.
Swanson’s husband, Seldon, also is a partner in the personal injury firm in the village. A formal announcement about the hiring of Fraas is expected shortly, Shillen said.
Swanson is recovering from spine surgery conducted on Dec. 22 at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. for ongoing injuries received during a shootout with a homicide suspect in the village 2.5 years ago. Swanson, who was wounded, injured a disc while trying to escape the line of fire, Police Chief Robbie Blish said at the time.
Fraas said she is trying to determine if Klesch is planning to step aside from representing both Duffy, who is prosecuting the case, and the village.
“Attorney Klesch just filed an appearance in the current Rule 75 on behalf of the Village. He also continues to represent Manager Duffy and apparently has no intention of voluntarily withdrawing from this ongoing dual representation,” Fraas asked Monaghan in her email last week.
Fraas said she is inclined to seek a temporary restraining order to resolve the issue.
She said she wants to avoid eventual reversal on those grounds rather than the substantive issues.
“At this time, I have not involved the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board but I have suggested that Attorney Klesch obtain an advisory opinion or simply do some quick research on the ethics and impropriety of the situation he has created,” Fraas wrote.
“Meanwhile, Manager Duffy, in consultation with Attorney Klesch, has continued to take unilateral actions with regard to Chief Swanson exposing the Village to further liability,” she wrote.
The Duffy/Swanson case has been percolating for 15 months.
Duffy originally placed Swanson on paid administrative leave on Oct. 15, 2024, two days after a traffic incident in the village involving Seldon and a second local driver. Duffy said he became concerned because Swanson did not notify him immediately about the Columbus Day weekend incident until the town offices reopened.
Duffy, in his latest letter, maintains he was approached by what he says were several employees regarding concerns about Swanson’s performance and conduct as Woodstock Police Chief. The employees were never identified in the letter.
The manager called in both the Vermont State Police and the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, who each cleared Swanson for his actions.
Duffy also hired a private investigator William Burgess to interview village police employees and town emergency dispatchers. By Jan. 10, 2025, Duffy said he was considering discipline, up to and including dismissal. The two sides met Jan. 22, 2025, and after that meeting, additional concerning conduct came to light, Duffy said in his letter.
The manager said he provided further written notice on Feb. 20, 2025, regarding that conduct, as well as information related to the previous issues. By Feb. 23, 2025, Duffy wrote that due to the nature, seriousness, and breadth of the issues described, he had no confidence in Swanson’s ability to lead “a prominent Village department.”
After being told he was being demoted, Duffy appealed to the village trustees, who conducted a hearing on March 19, 2025, in the basement at the Windsor County Sheriff’s Department.
Both sides presented testimony, including Duffy getting questioned for 4.5 hours during the 14.5-hour hearing. Duffy testified that he thought Swanson, a 20-year veteran, could continue to serve the village as a patrol officer, the lowest rank.
Workers complained about Swanson’s management style, including claims that he wore non-matching socks, his hair was messy, he would go for haircuts on village time, and he would not tell the employees where he was going when he left the police station. He also sometimes did not answer their cellphone calls, they said.
The village trustees issued a 5-0 ruling on April 17, 2025, upholding Duffy’s demotion decision.
Swanson appealed the demotion to Superior Court, known as a Rule 75 hearing. He also filed a $5 million lawsuit, which remains pending against Duffy, the village, trustee chair Seton McIlroy, and the private detective agency operated by Bill Burgess, a former Vermont State trooper.
Judge H. Dickson Corbett issued a couple of rulings during the summer, including that Sgt. Chris O’Keeffe, the interim police chief, could be added to the lawsuit, and blocking the village from naming a permanent police chief.
Corbett also ruled against the village trustees on Swanson’s appeal on Dec. 2, 2025.
He remanded the case back to the board members.
In her email to Monaghan this week, Fraas said, “Manager Duffy’s letter to Chief Swanson contains a serious mischaracterization regarding the court’s 12/2/25 order.”
“He erroneously states that ‘the Court issued a decision on December 2, 2025, remanding to the Village Trustees to determine whether there exists cause for your removal from the position of Police Chief.’ Instead, the court order actually stated that it was up to the Trustees to ‘decide whether to pursue further removal proceedings and how to handle petitioner’s employment duties in the meantime.’ The court made it clear that removal must be based on just cause. This is a critical distinction as the trustees are not bound to pursue this battle initiated by Manager Duffy and have ample opportunity to ascertain that this is ultimately an unwinnable case based upon the facts and law. We continue to anticipate reinstatement of Chief Swanson when this matter is reviewed by real judges applying the correct law,” she said.
Fraas added the trustees intend to hold another evidentiary hearing in April. She said she is still waiting for several pending issues, including back pay owed to Chief Swanson during the time that he was illegally demoted and recusal of trustees, along with issues raised by Attorney Klesch.
She said holding the hearing in April, as the trustees first proposed, would likely provide Chief Swanson with ample time to recover “from his recent lumbar fusion surgery and be able to fully participate in the preparation of his defense and the hearing.”
The village trustees agreed last month that Swanson needed to be returned to the rank of chief, but left him on the sidelines, putting him on paid administrative leave. O’Keeffe, the interim chief, is still running the department.
Now, Duffy is going to take a second bite at the apple and ask the trustees to find that there does exist cause to remove Swanson from the position of Police Chief, and to terminate his employment with the village.