By Kolby LaMarche

The Burlington City Council voted 9-3 late Monday night to postpone further consideration of the revised Burlington Forward public safety resolution until its Dec. 7 meeting, creating an ad hoc committee to seek a compromise on the long-contested measure, despite weeks of committee work already.

The ad hoc committee will consist of Progressive Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, Democratic Council President Ben Traverse, Democratic Caucus Chair Allie Schachter, and Progressive Caucus Chair Gene Bergman and it must report back to the full council in December. Councilors also voted 10-2 to replace the original resolution with the amended version for continued work.

The decision came after a meeting that included a lengthy public comment and more than an hour of debate, stretching on past midnight.

That move averted an immediate vote that Traverse warned could produce a mayoral veto and leave the proposal nowhere. “I can count,” Traverse said, referring to the absence of just one more vote the Democrats would need in order to override any mayoral veto.

Bergman, who proposed the committee, described it as a chance for progress. “ I see the possibility of a fruitful conversation,” he said. Before making that offer to council Democrats, Bergman ripped Democrats for the resolution, focusing on a section related to the city’s planned overdose prevention center (OPC).

“This is a transparently passive aggressive way to kill the OPC,” Bergman said, “it reminds me of Grover Norquist saying that he wants to shrink government to the size where he can kill it in a bathtub.”

Other Progressives piled on that night, too. Progressive Councilor Laura Sanchez-Parkinson argued the process of reviewing Burlington Forward has been a “psychological exercise”. Sanchez-Parkinson asserted that, on many occasions, council Democrats would send her revisions at all hours of the day and extend late invitations for collaboration.

“I’ve had to use the skillsets of navigating this city as a person of color,” she said, “I didn’t think I was necessary have to need [sic] those skills in this way.”

Progressives struck a similar tone in each bemoaning of the Forward resolution, with many placing the blame of miscommunication on likely mayoral hopeful Traverse. Mulvaney-Stanak claimed Traverse hadn’t responded to “good faith” emails, and Sanchez-Parkison claimed Traverse hadn’t even “read the minutes” before complaining about a lack of amendments.

Democrats too, though, had their own choice words for Progressives. Councilor Becca Brown-McKnight, who spoke right after Bergman.

Brown-McKnight began by citing that shortly after Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak’s “Burlington is back” presser, Burlington saw one of its worst summers in terms of crime, leading to the drafting of Burlington Forward. “How can we be back when we still have so far to go,” she said.

Brown-McKnight, no doubt a little peeved by previous Progressive comments, expressed her frustration clearly: “I’m really so tired of my colleagues across the table using their time here to critique process…they never bring those alternative ideas to the table,” she said. “Do you really think things are going well, or do you just not have new ideas to propose?” Brown-McKnight inquired.

Burlington Forward is a Democratic-led resolution first introduced in July that seeks to address open drug use, unsanctioned camping, homelessness, and disorder in downtown public spaces.

The original document called for a stronger visible public safety presence, greater accountability for unlawful conduct, expanded shelter and related resources, and clearer rules for public spaces and enforcement.

In both its original and revised forms it would increase police patrols downtown, intensify enforcement of drug laws, prevent new needle exchanges and a planned overdose-prevention site from opening downtown, direct city employees to help patrol public spaces, and establish sanctioned outdoor campsites. It also supports additional shelter capacity and services without specifying funding sources.

Democrats advanced the original resolution 7-5 in early August and referred it to four committees. After three months of review they produced a revised version. Traverse said the core goals remained unchanged but that the update incorporated feedback and added implementation details.

One change responds to ongoing police staffing shortages by looking to expand public safety teams with existing city personnel rather than relying only on additional officers, for example.

Another calls for consideration of a dedicated place outside parks and public spaces where people under the influence can sober up.

Mulvaney-Stanak opened Monday’s discussion with sharp criticism of the revised text. “Unfortunately it retains the same fundamental problems as the original version from August,” she said. “They are naïve as to the operational and legal realities. They don’t reflect what is possible with finite city staff, money and resources. And they conflict with the values that this city holds.”

In a statement released before the meeting she said the resolution contains inaccurate information, is insufficiently grounded in expertise from city personnel including police and fire departments, frames unsheltered homelessness primarily as public disorder rather than a product of structural failures such as lack of housing, and was revised without proper committee vetting or timely sharing with her administration.

Traverse rejected claims that the process was closed or purely partisan. “Contrary to some statements made, the original draft reflected input from public safety experts, social service leaders serving people experiencing homelessness and addiction, and many others,” he said. “I am tired of week-in and week-out hearing from businesses that are vacating our downtown; hearing from community members who are no longer bringing their families and their kids downtown or to our parks or to our waterfront.”

Progressive Councilor Melo Grant questioned the value of another committee. “What exactly is this committee going to do?” she asked. Democratic Councilor Evan Litwin, who has frequently sparred with Grant, expressed similar doubts about vague outcomes. Progressive Councilor Carter Neubieser called the process dysfunctional and the proposal “nakedly political,” arguing large portions remain underdeveloped and unfunded.

The ad hoc committee is expected to begin work soon and report by Dec. 7.

There is no guarantee it will produce a finished compromise ready for adoption.

Mulvaney-Stanak has said she will oppose any version that prohibits new needle exchanges or an overdose prevention center from locating downtown. Democrats hold a council majority and could advance a resolution over Progressive objections, but the realistic prospect of a veto has encouraged negotiation.