sarahTransparency and Public Records Request
To the Editor:
Democracy depends on an engaged and informed citizenry. After reading The Bridge’s Feb. 17 story “One Person’s Public Records Request Cost City Hall Hundreds of Hours,” I watched the recording of that segment of the city council meeting. The report on public records requests primarily focused on non-police related requests. In 2025 there were 220 requests, and the cost to process those requests was $146,000 for staff time, administration, and legal advice.
Someone noted the cost was basically like adding a penny to the tax rate. In 2025 there were 35 requests during the two-month period of January and February. This year, for the period January 1 through February 11 there were 39 requests. Given that, 2026 is looking like a possible banner year for public records requests.
While the report was helpful, I, like most citizens, am in the dark without more information about each of the requests. What was the general topic area, what was the request, and what was the response?
One suggested remedy to that problem was for the city to post a list of public record requests on the city website. I think that is a great idea. Anyone who is interested would have easy access without further burdening the city staff. The city by sharing each request will potentially educate citizens of concerns or issues raised that otherwise may be unknown to them. I would suggest the response to the requestor should also be posted, if not included in the list, as it would further inform citizens.
Sharing this information on public record requests will help inform citizens on the general issue and other issues raised in each request, improve city government and citizen participation, and increase trust through transparency.
Russell Frank, Camillus, New York (formerly of Montpelier)
Montpelier Needs a Public Restroom
To the Editor:
Mayor Marc Gwinn opened last Wednesday’s special city council meeting on homelessness by reading a quote from Fred Rogers into the record: “All we’re ever asked to do in this life is to treat our neighbor — especially our neighbor who is in need — exactly as we would hope to be treated ourselves. That’s our ultimate responsibility.”
Then on Saturday morning, volunteers with Montpelier Alive were out front of city hall on Green Up Day, passing out garbage bags to residents who had come to clean up our city. Their office is in city hall. They, too, could not get in the front door to use the bathroom.
City hall has at least three bathrooms. It is video surveilled. It sits less than a hundred feet from the police station. The basement room is outfitted as an emergency shelter — cots, supplies, the works — and it sat empty that same morning while our unhoused neighbors, many who have had no reliable access to a restroom or a shower for seven years or more, spent another night outside in the rain.
Mayor Gwinn, with all due respect: Fred Rogers was not describing an aspiration. He was describing a minimum. If we cannot unlock a bathroom door on any morning or night, or a shelter room, the Rogers quote does not elevate your opening remarks. It mocks them.
Stephen Whitaker, Montpelier
Do 100% Renewable Energy Standards Make Sense?
To the Editor:
Despite how it is often presented, and unlike parts of California, Texas, and Pakistan, Vermont cannot rely exclusively on solar and wind for electricity because of seasonal limitations and the fact that long-duration storage is not yet up to the task. Solar production drops 85%–90% in Vermont winters, and wind isn’t dependable enough to provide reliable baseload power. This means that other baseload sources need to work with solar and wind, or the lights go out.
Under the 100% Renewable Energy Standard (RES), utilities are paying new taxes on clean, baseload electricity from nuclear and (large) hydro. These taxes start relatively low, but increase markedly in the future. Higher taxes lead to higher electricity rates while encouraging greater reliance on burning biomass (renewable, but not clean or inexpensive) for baseload power.
Existing hydro and nuclear contracts are often the lowest-cost per kWh in a utility’s portfolio, and nuclear has a 70-year safety record that is a close second to solar’s. With legislative action, taxes could be removed from crucial clean baseload sources (hydro and nuclear).
Prior to RES updates from 75% to 100% in 2024, only 3% of Vermont’s pollution came from electricity generation, while 71% came from cars and home heating. The 100% Renewable Energy Standard raises electricity rates, reducing reliability, and hindering adoption of cleaner transportation and home-heating options. This raises the question of why the Renewable Energy Standard was raised to 100% and why it stipulates renewable, but not necessarily clean, electricity generation.
There are about seven million deaths a year from air pollution, and Vermonters already have high energy bills. Do you feel the 100% RES makes sense and addresses Vermont’s needs as currently written? If not, please contact your representatives.
Ian Buchanan, East Montpelier
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Submit your letter by email to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont, should not exceed 300 words in length, and may be edited for brevity and accuracy.
