Transparency, Accountability, and the Responsibility to Speak Honestly

I want my constituents to hear this directly from me.

An ethics complaint was recently filed against me with the Vermont House Ethics Panel. The complaint has now been closed without any hearing or finding of wrongdoing. I respect the Ethics Panel and its role. With that decision, the Ethics Panel stated clearly that “there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an ethical violation occurred.”

I am sharing both the original complaint and my response publicly because I believe transparency is part of the trust you place in me when you elect me to represent you.

It is my firmly held belief that if I become the subject of a formal complaint connected to my public service, even when unfounded, you deserve to know. You also deserve access to the actual documents, not just my characterization of them. You can read both for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The complaint, initiated by the “Chief” of the Missisquoi organization that has been recognized by the State of Vermont as an Abenaki group, centered on my public and legislative criticism of Vermont’s state recognition process for groups identifying as Abenaki, and on my advocacy for centering the voices of the Abenaki First Nations of Odanak and Wôlinak in that conversation. The “Chief” of the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk, another group that has been similarly recognized by the State of Vermont, then joined the complaint. The Panel’s decision to close the matter without a hearing reflects what I have maintained throughout my response to the complaint. Namely, that disagreement over public policy and historical interpretation is not an ethics violation.

This is what these groups have repeatedly done when faced with scrutiny. They weaponize the panels and processes that have been put in place to safeguard against legitimate ethical concerns in order to intimidate and silence an honest and empirically based evaluation of flawed decisions such as that which resulted in these state recognitions.

Here is the complaint that was filed to the Vermont House Ethics Panel:
Original Complaint

Here is an added complaint submitted after the initial:
Additional Complaint

Here is my response to the panel:
Response to Ethics Panel

And, finally, here is the Complaint Closure from the Panel:
Complaint Closure

This was not an isolated complaint. Again, it reflects a broader and increasingly familiar pattern from these groups. 

When individuals raise evidence-based questions about Vermont’s recognition process, the response from these state-recognized groups has not been to engage that evidence directly, but to pursue reputational attacks and procedural complaints through institutional channels. That has included ethics complaints, administrative complaints, and other formal filings aimed at discrediting critics rather than answering them. Because they continually fail to produce any substantive answer.

This approach has been used before. A UVM faculty member and a local educator who also urged more rigorous evaluation of the recognition process were previously subjected to similar complaints. Those complaints, too, were dismissed.

Dr. David Massell is a Professor of History at UVM, Director of the Canadian Studies Program, and member of the Environmental Program. He teaches courses on U.S. and Canadian environmental and Indigenous history. He has served on the UVM faculty since 1997.

Dr. Massell has engaged in similar advocacy and a commitment to centering the voices of the legitimate Abenaki First Nations at Odanak and Wôlinak. He hosted representatives of Odanak First Nation at UVM at the ‘Beyond Borders’ symposium in the spring of 2022. He convened and organized two other UVM symposia on Indigenous identity, in 2023 and 2024. In the summer of 2022, he became the target of a conspiracy theory suggesting that he is on the payroll of Hydro-Quebec. He is not. Elodie Reed, then-producer and reporter for Vermont Public, investigated and found the smear to be baseless.

This past fall, Dr. Massell was similarly subject to an ethics complaint submitted to UVM. The complaint was thoroughly reviewed by UVM’s lawyers, a Dean, and the VP for Research. Ultimately, his Chair was asked to determine if the allegation merited a UVM inquiry. The Chair found the accusations baseless and stated as such. His response included a statement that this was but an effort to silence and intimidate a longstanding UVM Professor. The case was dismissed.

Peter Langella is a librarian and social justice educator at Champlain Valley Union High School. He is also a School Librarianship Lecturer in the College of Education and Social Services at UVM and an English Instructor at Vermont State University.

Peter’s advocacy and call for critique of the state recognition processes includes simply sharing an email with the Vermont School Library Association listserve featuring resources about the concepts of race shifting and self-indigenization within the Vermont Abenaki community. He also posted a public Twitter thread on his now-defunct personal account around the same time that featured many of the same resources and ideas. That’s it. This is protected speech in its purest form.

Shortly after, the “Chief” of the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk – Abenaki Nation, contacted then-Champlain Valley School District Superintendent Rene Sanchez and then-CVU Principal Adam Bunting, as well as school board members and legislators accusing Peter of “hate speech” and “slander” and calling for him to be “sanctioned (if not fired).” The ramifications of those targeted smears continue to surface for Peter to this day.

Everyone has the right to file a complaint. That is not the issue. The concern arises when those mechanisms are used not to address misconduct, but to weaponize legitimate processes to discourage scrutiny and silence dissent. That is avoidance. In this case, it’s an avoidance of legitimate claims to which there are no credible dispute.

Public policy in a democracy depends on scrutiny. When decisions involve identity, history, legal recognition, and access to public authority, they deserve careful examination. Asking hard questions about state processes, reviewing new evidence, and challenging prior assumptions are core responsibilities of anyone engaged in serious governance. I have reviewed the audio recordings of all committee meetings relating to the 2011-2012 state recognition process and am in the process of transcribing those recordings. The state recognition process was tremendously flawed and in disregard of international standards for involving sovereign indigenous nations.

Reasonable people can disagree about the conclusions. That disagreement belongs in open debate, public dialogue, and legislative process. It does not belong in efforts to frame critique itself as misconduct.

I will continue to advocate for a careful, evidence-based reassessment of Vermont’s recognition practices. I will continue to urge that we meaningfully engage with the Abenaki First Nations of Odanak and Wôlinak, whose histories long predate modern borders and whose exclusion from earlier processes raises serious ethical and policy concerns. This position aligns with widely accepted international principles, including those outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am publishing these materials not to inflame conflict, but because I believe Vermonters are capable of evaluating evidence for themselves. I trust you to read the documents, to see the tone and substance of what was alleged, and to see how I responded.

If we are serious about accountability in government, we must also be serious about protecting the space for good-faith inquiry, disagreement, and debate. The answer to uncomfortable questions cannot be procedural suppression. It must be better evidence, better reasoning, and better dialogue.

If you want to understand this issue more deeply, or if you have questions about my position, I welcome the conversation. You do not need to agree with me. You only need to be willing to engage honestly with the material.

That is the standard I hold myself to, and it is the standard I will continue to uphold in public office. 

Read the complaint. Read my response. Decide for yourself.

Respectfully,

Troy