Weeks after protesters filled the House chamber and interrupted the governor’s inauguration, the man in charge of running the Statehouse faces competition for his job.
Two challengers are running against Francis Brooks, who has been sergeant-at-arms since 2007. The legislature on Thursday is to elect one of three candidates to a two-year term.
Janet Miller, who is director of operations for Legislative Council in the Statehouse, and Chuck Satterfield, a part-time detective with the Northfield Police Department, are challenging Brooks.
Legislators say the protests led to concerns. “There’s a general level of discontent with the way the office is run,” said Rep. David Deen (D-Westminster). He also said, “There is no organized effort for a candidate that I am aware of.”
“There were concerns about the way security and access to the chamber were dealt with during the govenor’s inaugural,” said House Majority Leader Sarah Copeland Hanzas (D-Bradford). “That’s when the conversations started happening.”
Brooks said he was surprised by the challenge. “It bothers me that people are supposedly upset or whatever and I can’t honestly tell you why,” Brooks said.
Brooks, 72, is a former Montpelier High School teacher and state representative. As sergeant-at-arms, he is in charge of daily operations of the Statehouse, including security, delivering messages to legislators and the scheduling of conference rooms.
Rep. Paul Poirier (I-Barre) said he was alarmed to learn of opposition to Brooks’ reelection and is going to bat for him. Poirier said he long ago recruited Brooks to run for the legislature. Brooks has been a faithful Democrat and it’s sad to see fellow Democrats turn on him, Poirier said. “I think Francis has done a good job,” Poirier said. “I think it’s a kick in the teeth.”
Poirier said he’s heard complaints that some people think Brooks is grumpy. “He’s not grumpy to me,” Poirier said.
Others complained that Brooks has been unresponsive to legislators’ concerns and hasn’t done enough to recruit eighth-grade pages from throughout Vermont for three-month stints at the Statehouse.
The January 8 inaugural protest brought the discontent to the forefront, however. Scores of protesters, angry over Gov. Peter Shumlin’s decision not to pursue single-payer health care, filled the House chamber as Shumlin delivered his speech. They chanted and unfurled banners, which Brooks and his staff immediately hauled down. Protesters clogged the chamber’s doorway, forcing Shumlin to exit through the back door. Protesters refused to leave and 29 were arrested. Many legislators characterized the incident as crossing a line on civility and wondered whether Brooks and his staff should have done more.
A month later, hundreds of people turned out for an evening public hearing on proposed gun legislation. Some legislators said they felt intimidated by the heavy turnout of gun-rights activists and wondered whether there should have been a larger security presence.
It’s unclear whether those questioning how Brooks handled the situation want more restrictions on Statehouse access. Traditionally, one of the hallmarks of Vermont’s capitol building has been its openness.
Both Miller and Satterfield mentioned security as an issue.
Miller, 58, of Montpelier, has worked for Legislative Council in the Statehouse for 15 years. Since 2007, she has been the office’s director of operations, overseeing the legislative staff. She said her experience gives her a good overall knowledge of Statehouse functions. Miller said she had no comment on whether Statehouse security should be changed. “I want to get all the facts. I would want to take everything under consideration,” she said.
Satterfield, 60, of Northfield, used to work as a lobbyist in the Statehouse. He also worked for the Governor’s Highway Safety Program for nine years and has been a part-time officer with the Northfield Police Department for 10 years. His wife, Kathy Satterfield, served as assistant sergeant-at-arms, and briefly was appointed sergeant-at-arms to fill the remainder of a term in the 1990s.
Chuck Satterfield said he’s getting old for regular police work. “It’s time for me to find another job,” he said. His knowledge of the Statehouse plus his law enforcement experience would be beneficial, he said. On Statehouse security, Satterfield said he wants to keep the building as open as possible, but said, “That’s fine as long as people in the building aren’t compromised.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Legislators uncomfortable when Vermonters visit THEIR Statehouse and cry for more security? That is a damn shame. We have enough of the “more intimidation mindset” in other states, and it seems to lead to bad results. If it is indeed the people’s house, be thankful they still care enough to come and express their opinion.
Some legislators said they felt intimidated by the heavy turnout of gun-rights activists at the S31 public comment hearing last Tuesday night and wondered whether there should have been a larger security presence. Which legislators felt intimidated? The VT Statehouse hasn’t been that safe in years. Our Capital building was filled with current law enforcement, ex-law-enforcement, ex-military, hunters, & sportsmen- our fellow Vermonters, who, in spite of being characterized by one Gunsense speaker as alcoholics with something to hide, proved to be well regulated, respectful, & remarkably well behaved, given the emotional levels in play. Anyone who tried to cause trouble that night would have immediately had 10 citizens wearing blaze orange all over them. As for a heavier security presence, that can be more provocative than productive. As for those activists who disrupted the Governor’s inauguration, that is exactly how gun rights activists don’t act.
Sorry but if the intimidation they felt was for anything other than loosing their seats for going against the Constitution of our great state then they shouldn’t be in office anyway because there was certainly nothing to fear from any of the citizens that showed up to the hearing and that means on either side and if their intimidation was felt for loosing their seats then they have plenty to be intimidated about and sorry but no level of security is going to change that for them. Shape up or ship out.
“Some legislators said they felt intimidated by the heavy turnout of gun-rights activists and wondered whether there should have been a larger security presence.”
Really??? How much more civilized were those protecting the VT Constitution than the leftists interrupting the Inauguration?
We WERE a MASSIVE security presence: That Pro-Constitution crowd, as large as it was, had >three times as many Veterans in it than it had #gunsensevt folks total. It also had Many, currently serving military members (including myself), all of whom (with the Veterans) have been taught discipline and courage in the face of an aggressor, and would even face a rabid flatlander granny brandishing an assault knitting needle!
Lastly, there were several LEGALLY carried firearms in the room, as quite a few of the Pro-Constitution crowd were sworn Law Enforcement Officers, including Chief Bombardier, who all carry arms off-duty, and can carry in the Statehouse. They too would have kept those rabid grannies from hurting you.
So, no need to feel physically intimidated by the 2A/A16 crowd, you have never been safer from physical harm in your life as you were Tuesday night.
Of course, if you felt intimidated that your job was at risk by your actions against the Freedoms of good Vermonters, then of course, you have never been more justified in that.
I would love to know which legislators are afraid of their own constituents when they come to the state house to share their opinion.
I was there at the public hearing on S.31. The assembled crowd was indeed large, but people were extremely well behaved, especially given the intense feelings that surround this issue.
The legislators had no reason to fear any sort of physical intimidation or violence against their persons and I saw nothing to suggest that an added security presence was in any way necessary.
I do hope the legislators were “intimidated” in a political sense. Intimidated by the prospect of angering the hundreds of registered voters who showed up on a weeknight to express their opposition to the proposed legislation. People willing to do that are not only voters; they are activists whom no politician would want as adversaries.
It’s healthy for there to be an election for a position that requires a vote to be filled. Reasons for running might not necessarily be about whether the incumbent is doing a good enough job. It’s often more likely to be an opportunity for a candidate to run for a job because they think they are qualified and are passionate about it. It ain’t all about guns.
I would like to applaud Francis Brooks for his years of service – both in the legislature and as Sergeant at Arms. I have known and worked with Francis for 25 years.
Francis is, in my opinion , exactly the kind of person we need at the State House. He is a gentleman and is extremely dedicated to his job. He has made sure that the State House is , indeed, the people’s house. Francis, thank you for your hard work on Vermonter’s behalf.
One can listen live to floor action concerning the Sergeant-at-Arms vote being held today, beginning at 10:30am, via the Vermont House stream provided by Vermont Public Radio (VPR):
http://vprstate.streamguys.net/vprhouse24.…