City council members in Burlington have advanced the first steps of a 20-page plan designed to address downtown crime, but the county’s top prosecutor says she was kept out of the drafting and labelled the effort "performative." The dispute highlights friction between elected officials and the offices responsible for prosecution, and it has become a flashpoint in an already heated primary campaign.
Prosecutor says she was not consulted
Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George told reporters she would have attended the July 24 unveiling of the plan called Burlington Forward if she had been invited, and that she had not been consulted while it was being written. "I would’ve liked to have known about it when it was being written, considering that it impacts my office," she said.
George described the council's resolution as lacking evidence-based solutions. "I found the resolution to be performative and without any real solutions that are proven to work," she told the Burlington Free Press. Her comments came as the plan was moved to committee on Aug. 3 in a party-line vote.
What the plan proposes
The document, released in late July roughly two weeks before a high-profile primary for the state’s attorney position, names increased law enforcement, prosecution and tougher penalties as core tools to tackle graffiti, shoplifting and drug use and trafficking downtown. It also proposes relocating people experiencing homelessness away from the downtown area while pairing that action with services aimed at supporting those people.
- Primary solutions proposed: more policing, more prosecution, increased punishment for offenders.
- Populations affected: plan singles out people without housing in downtown areas and couples relocation with services.
- Political context: resolution advanced on party lines; critics say it unfairly targets unhoused people and those with addiction.
Progressive councilors and community advocates have objected to the content and framing of the plan, arguing it may criminalize homelessness and addiction rather than addressing root causes with proven supports. The resolution’s main sponsor, Council President Ben Traverse, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Traverse attended the Aug. 3 meeting virtually, citing travel delays.
Timing and political consequences
The plan’s unveiling occurred about two weeks before voters were to decide whether to return Sarah George to another term or to support her primary challenger, Bram Kranichfeld. Opponents of the resolution have tied its timing and tenor to campaign dynamics, saying a law-and-order approach may be politically motivated.
"I would’ve liked to have known about it when it was being written, considering that it impacts my office." — Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George
Officials moved the resolution to committees on Aug. 3 to allow further refinement and review. According to published reports, the vote fell along party lines, with Democratic members supporting the resolution and Progressive members opposing it.
| Action | Result |
|---|---|
| Council vote on moving Burlington Forward resolution | Passed; referred to committees (party-line vote: Democrats in favour, Progressives opposed) |
| Public reaction from State’s Attorney | Criticised as "performative"; said she was not consulted and would have attended unveiling if invited |
The episode also prompted a correction from the original reporting outlet clarifying the attribution of a quote: a prior version had misattributed an explanation about why Democrats did not consult the prosecutor; that remark was actually made by Councilor Evan Litwin.
For municipal observers, the dispute underscores the tensions that can arise when city governments put forward public-safety proposals that intersect with prosecutorial discretion and the responsibilities of county legal offices. Whether the plan will be reshaped in committee remains to be seen, and any changes will likely factor into local political debates already heightened by the prosecutor’s primary campaign.
As the matter progresses, residents and advocacy groups will watch for committee hearings, opportunities for public input, and whether the resolution’s punitive measures will be tempered by investments in housing, treatment and proven interventions.
