Burlington Police Department cruisers parked outside the department in Burlington on August 26, 2024. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDiggerThe fight over a charter change to strengthen police oversight in Burlington may not be over. After a years-long effort and several failed attempts, a proposed charter change to give more disciplinary and oversight power to the city’s police commission won support from a majority of Burlington voters. But Burlington police opposed the measure, and now, the union representing them says it will continue to push against the proposal at the Statehouse. The ballot item, approved by 63% of voters on Nov. 5, would change the city’s charter to codify the city police commission’s role as an oversight body. It would allow the commission to convene an independent panel to scrutinize officer misconduct and to decide on disciplinary measures — taking sole authority away from the police chief. While the measure was approved by city residents, local charter changes also require legislative approval. In an interview, Joe Corrow, the head of the Burlington Police Officers’ Association, said the union will testify against the charter change at the Statehouse.“I believe the reason this passed is because it was misrepresented on what it was, what it did — that’s the reason it passed,” Corrow. In the run-up to the election, both the union and Police Chief Jon Murad spoke out against the proposal. Pointing to existing regulations within the department, they argued the charter change was unnecessary and would hinder efforts to recruit more officers to the beleaguered department.The police union, in a statement after the ballot item passed, contended that the proposal “was presented to voters in a fashion that did not afford appropriate analysis to make a truly informed assessment.”City officials disputed that characterization, and noted that both the union and the department had a seat at the table while the proposal was being crafted.“For them to continue to say that there was a misrepresentation is just off. The fundamentals of this have been out there in the public realm for over a year,” said Progressive Councilor Gene Bergman. “It’s very, very disappointing.”In an interview, Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak said both Democrats and Progressives agreed to work on a compromise, and the police chief and the union were involved in those deliberations and had a chance to weigh in along the way.“So, in terms of misrepresentation and what not, I fail to understand what that exactly means, because if anything, it has gone through many, many rounds of public process engagement — with them at the table even,” she said. “I think there’s a difference between just disagreeing with the fundamental policy and misrepresentation.”Murad clarified that the police department won’t be doing any kind of lobbying against the charter change. “It’s inappropriate and not allowed, but the union exists as a separate body and obviously is going to pursue what it sees as its needs,” he said.Burlington’s efforts to enshrine more civilian oversight over the police department have been ongoing since at least 2019, when several officers — Corrow included — became entangled in excessive use-of-force lawsuits.The city has since paid out nearly $1 million from the two separate excessive force lawsuits — one settled in August for $215,000 and another last year for $750,000. A third excessive force lawsuit was filed in court this year and remains in process.Those cases were magnified after the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota set off nationwide protests in the summer of 2020.This led to a proposal in December 2020 that would have granted full power to a community control board to hire and fire police officers, including the chief. But then-Mayor Miro Weinberger vetoed the proposal the following month.Democrats and Progressives came to a compromise this year in agreeing to put a police oversight measure to the voters.But the police union has argued that attempts by the city to enshrine civilian oversight are hurting efforts to restaff the department.“You’ve worked here and you survived everything through 2020, and now they keep pushing something that we keep saying that we don’t want, or we think that we have adequate disciplinary processes and show why we do,” Padric Hartnett, vice president of the police union, said in an interview. “That hurts morale internally.”While Burlington residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of the item, there’s no guarantee it becomes law. Several notable ballot items approved by the city’s voters have either been vetoed or have lagged in the Statehouse.City residents, for example, approved a trio of charter changes in 2014 that aimed to reduce gun violence in part by prohibiting guns at Burlington bars.Mulvaney-Stanak, during her time as a state representative, introduced a bill to move those changes forward, but, she noted previously,  it “never received a walk-through or a hearing.”Similarly, voters in 2022 approved a ballot item on “just cause” evictions, which would bar landlords from evicting tenants without providing legal cause. The measure passed locally with 63% of the vote, and won legislative approval only to be vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott.Rep. Troy Headrick, P/D-Burlington, said politics often plays a role in whether charter changes are approved. He, however, considers them a mandate that must be respected by legislators.“Unless they would present an egregious harm to the rest of the state, I think we have an obligation — we owe it to the residents who overwhelmingly voted in this case … to respect their voices,” he said.Rep. Robert Hooper, D-Burlington, a member of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs, said when the committee reviews charter changes it considers “how they’re going to play in other towns, and whether the idea is something that should be statewide as opposed to just town by town.”Hooper said he didn’t want to offer an opinion on the charter change until legislators have heard testimony about it. But he did note that the city and state have had problems with recruitment and retention of police officers.“So, I’m going to be looking at this with the committee hat on to basically say, ‘What impact is it going to have? What unintended consequences might we be looking at,'” he said.Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central, said she considers it “bad democracy” to ignore the will of the voters.“We live in a point in time where there’s eroding trust between people and government entities,” she said, “and so it surprises me a little bit that the police would come out in opposition to something that is an opportunity for them to build trust and transparency.”Read the story on VTDigger here: Burlington police union will take police oversight fight to the Statehouse.