A Middlebury Board of Selectmen’s FOIA request resulted in dissension at a recent meeting, as allegations town checks were signed improperly became the focus of conversation. Multiple people present at the meeting also objected to what they described as an inaccuracy on the meeting agenda, which stated that a member of the town’s Greenway Committee’s term had expired but whom the Democratic Town Committee had recommended for reappointment.

Selectman Jennifer Mahr posted on Facebook that she had never been asked to sign town checks, despite the town charter requiring two selectmen and the town treasurer’s signature. According to Mahr, in the past the town’s practice has been to have all three selectmen sign checks along with the treasurer. She also alleged that selectman J. Paul Vance has been using a signature stamp to sign checks along with first selectman Edward St. John, allowing someone else to sign checks for Vance.

Vance has said that use of the signature stamp is in keeping with the town charter.

“No voucher, claim or charge against the Town shall be paid until the same has been audited by the Board of Selectmen and approved for correctness and validity. Checks shall be drawn for the payment of approved claims and shall be valid only when countersigned by the Treasurer and two (2) Selectmen.” the Middlebury Town Charter states.

Those allegations were raised during the BOS’ April 7 meeting during a discussion over an agenda item about a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that Mahr filed seeking an invoice for Vance’s signature stamp. Mahr told Inside Investigator she filed the FOIA request to “pinpoint how long someone else has been using Selectman Vance’s signature in his absence.”

St. John opened the discussion on Mahr’s FOIA request by bringing meeting attendees “up to speed” on Mahr’s allegations as published by Inside Investigator. He called the final paragraph in a story covering the issue, where Mahr said voters could decide if Vance’s use of a signature check was fraud or dereliction of duty, “most bothersome” to him. He also asked Mahr to retract or apologize for the statement.

Mahr objected to the discussion, noting that it was not related to the agenda’s topic of discussion, which was her FOIA request.

St. John stated that her allegations were a part of the FOIA request. He also added that the town is looking into responsive documents but suspected they would be redacted.

Vance added that he wanted on the record that Mahr had accused him of fraud and also demanded either a retraction or an apology. He objected to Mahr running to Facebook to make allegations rather than ask him about the use of the signature stamp. Vance further suggested that, if she believed the issue was a crime, Mahr should have made a complaint to the police department or, if she believed the issue was an ethics violation, she should have filed an ethics complaint. He also reiterated that the use of the stamp was not a violation of the charter or state law.

St. John said that the stamp more than likely came from W.B. Mason, which the town has a contract with and suggested while the receipt might not be easy to find, it would likely be found “sooner or later.” He also objected to Mahr posting images of town checks on social media, stating the town has had “various issues with washing checks” on social media. Mahr, who later deleted images of the checks from her Facebook post, stated no copy of an entire check had been posted on social media. St. John stated that she had sent an image of a full check in her FOIA request.

During the discussion, Mahr again argued that unless Vance used his signature stamp every time he signed a check, someone else was using his signature stamp. Vance replied that this was not accurate and that, legally, a facsimile signature is the same as an actual signature when authorized by the person whose signature is being stamped.

Mahr asked where the authorization for the use of the stamp was or for a distinction on the stamped check indicating Vance’s authority had been legally delegated to someone else. Vance replied that the authority was not delegated and authorization was given for every check.

Mahr asked if that was true when Vance was on safari in Africa last year. Vance said he was done discussing the issue and would decide what his next option would be.

Vance and St. John also suggested that Mahr had not been asked to sign checks because of an alleged conflict of interest and a pending ethics board investigation against her. Mahr again noted that the topic was not on the agenda and asked why it was being discussed. Vance replied that it was leading up to the subject of why he was not comfortable having her sign checks. Mahr is the president of the Middlebury Small Town Alliance, which has been involved in two lawsuits against the town’s Conservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission.

An ethics complaint against her, dating to May 2024, alleged that this relationship was a conflict of interest. It also alleged that Mahr represented private interests during a BOS meeting where the topic of whether the town should pay for legal expenses to defend the boards in the lawsuits was discussed. Mahr has dismissed both allegations and the complaint was withdrawn. The ethics commission received another complaint against Mahr in February.

Mahr objected multiple times to the discussion, noting that no determination had been made in the ethics complaint and calling the discussion inappropriate.

“Today was the first time I heard that I can’t sign checks because I have a conflict of interest. When I tried to sign checks earlier this afternoon, the Finance office told me it was unnecessary because the checks already had two signatures. When I asked why all Selectman from the previous BOS signed checks, the answer was because they were all always at Town Hall but it wasn’t necessary.” Mahr told Inside Investigator following the meeting.

“The issue isn’t whether or not a stamp is a legal signature: the issue is who is using the stamp and why. Selectman Vance doesn’t use the stamp in person, it is used in his absence to make it look like he approved of the expenditure. This means he is absent enough and for a long enough time that someone else has to sign for him. The voters deserve to know this.” she added.

The signature stamp was not the only issue at the April 7 meeting. The meeting devolved into shouting, also involving members of the public in attendance, several times over an agenda item to replace Patricia Lindenman on the town’s Greenway Committee. According to the agenda, Lindenman’s term had expired. But according to Mahr and members of the Middlebury Democratic Town Committee (DTC) who were present, the DTC recommended Lindenman be reappointed for a second term.

Mahr objected to the agenda item, asking for a correction, and asking why someone who wanted to stay in a seat had been deemed expired. Mahr also asked why two other Greenway Committee members, one a Republican and the other unaffiliated, were reappointed while a Democrat was not. Mahr’s questions, as well as interjections from Lindenman, who noted she had been recommended for reappointment, were ignored.

During the public comment period of the meeting, Sally Romano, the DTC chair said that she was disappointed in the way they had been treated and asked for an explanation. Vance stated that several people provided documentation of their qualifications for the position, but one was more qualified. He added that several people working on the committee supported St. John’s choice to receive the nomination.

The board also suggested that while the town committee makes appointments, the town charter says the chair of the committee is responsible for reappointments.

“When filling a vacancy of any officer, board or commission member who was elected as a nominee of a political party, the Board of Selectmen shall fill the vacancy with a person of the same political party as the vacating officer, commission or board member from a list provided by the Town Committee of the Political Party of the vacating officer, commission or board member.” Middlebury’s charter states.

“Patricia Lindenman has been an instrumental member of the Greenway committee, and a volunteer who has served this town for longer than Mr. Vance himself has been a resident. Unfortunately, in the days leading up to the meeting, Second Selectman Vance did not respond to requests from the MDTC for more information about how he arrived at his decision to, once again, ignore the well-founded recommendation of our committee. His refusal to respond to a simple question stands in stark contrast to the steadfast dedication of Ms. Lindenman.” Romano told Inside Investigator. “After the Board of Selectmen meeting on Monday, Ms. Lindenman was scheduled to present to the Greenway committee, from which she had just been so unceremoniously removed. Rather than shirk her commitment or avoid what had to be an uncomfortable situation, she went to the meeting and gave the presentation. While Selectman Vance may not value that level of dedication and moral fortitude, the Middlebury Democratic Town Committee will continue to promote these values for the good of our town and our party.” 

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.