Our Letter to Vermont Law and Graduate School
A long read - sorry.
************************************
October 9th, 2025
To: The Vermont Law & Graduate School
Beth McCormack
Dean, Vermont Law School
bmccormack@vermontlaw.edu
cc: Mr Glenn Berger JD’78
Chair, Board of Trustees
gberger@vermontlaw.edu
From Violet Putney.
Strafford resident (renter)
re: Professor Dycus complaint.
(via email only)
Dear Ms McCormack (cc: Mr Berger),
Please consider this email a formal complaint against your institution. Why does VLS think it is necessary to harass our Selectboard and Town Clerk with silly matters? I am referring to Professor Stephen Dycus' recent email criticizing a simple flag at-half-mast matter. His email was signed as such via his VermontLaw.Edu address. Below is a copy of his condescending, incomplete legal advice/analysis on a recent flag flying matter.
Apparently, from what I've been told, this has not been the first time that he, and other members of your institution, have berated our town leaders for simply doing their job. Moreover, his angst over this matter completely lacks perspective given our Selectboard's busy daily duties, especially with pending winter-related matters. I find Professor Dycus' correspondence childish at best as he completely disregards what our Selectboard needs to focus on, especially in light of recent threats to their physical safety (from others in our "small caring community"). More troubling, is that Professor Dycus' flag attack might also provide motivation to the other flag loving nutcase in town who is currently under a Strafford Town Office staff restraining order.
As a technical matter, I don't even think Professor Dycus is correct in his politically motivated scolding but even if his astute reasoning is valid, it is still inconsequential and distracts town officials' focus on operational matters.
If your circle-the-wagon response is simply "this is not a VLS matter" then perhaps your school should issue a policy proclamation about VLS' IT Acceptable Use Policy before your professors attack members of my community for having different and inconsequential interpretations of policies that stem directly from our US President's recent flag proclamation. Not surprisingly, your email policies are very straightforward and easy to understand as opposed to various Federal and State statutes dealing with flag flying matters. If Professor Dycusus can't even understand simple policies such as yours, I hardly think he's in the position to interpret more complex Federal flag flying ones.
At best, Professor Dycus' argument should be directed at the Whitehouse as perhaps their proclamation (referenced below) was invalid or unclear as to who should follow it. However, I appreciate the need of soap-box bullies to maximize their own egos via the easiest feedback loops -- i.e. our busy town officials.
Do better - for the sake of our small caring community.
Violet
PS. I too can make this a "teachable" moment; see my comments below Professor Dycus' email.
Copy of Professor Stephen Dycus' email to Strafford Town Clerk & Selectboard
From: Stephen Dycus <SDYCUS@vermontlaw.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 4:13 PM
To: Town Of Strafford <townclerk@straffordvt.org>
Cc: selectboard@straffordvt.org
Subject: Re: Flag
Thank you for this additional information, Lisa.
I believe that lowering the flags to honor Charlie Kirk was a mistake.
First, the President of the United States has no authority to order
municipal officials to fly the flags in any particular way. A federal
statute, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 7, says the President must order the lowering of the
U.S. flag "upon the death of principal figures of the United States
Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark
of respect to their memory." Upon "the death of other officials or foreign
dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to
Presidential instructions or orders." And a governor may order the lowering
of the flag upon the death of a state official or member of the armed
forces. No mention is made of lowering the flag to honor any private
individual.
President Trump's September 10 proclamation to lower flags at federal
facilities from September 9-14 to honor private citizen Charlie Kirk thus
had no statutory basis, and in any event it clearly had no legal effect
whatever on state and local officials in Vermont. Governor Scott has not
ordered the lowering of flags.
The Half Staff American Flag Notifications website that sent the notice to
lower the flag is an unofficial organization run by volunteers that has no
power to require anything.
I bring all of this up in what may be an unprecedented case to point out
that lowering the flag to honor Charlie Kirk was a purely political act that
might have suggested to some that the Town of Strafford officially
subscribed to Kirk's (or Trump's) political views. Clearly, the Town,
whether acting through its Selectboard or otherwise, must never do such a
thing, especially when the politics are so very controversial.
I strongly recommend that in the future the Selectboard should decide
whether to lower the flag to half-staff, based on policies that the town can
appropriately adopt. This could be done in advance in many cases, such as
Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and in other cases ad hoc, with or without a
Presidential proclamation.
By copy of this message I am asking the Selectboard for its consideration of
this matter.
Steve
Stephen Dycus
Professor Emeritus
Vermont Law School
**************************
A teachable moment for the experts at Vermont Law
A) Donald Trump's Proclamation reads in part "As a mark of respect for the memory of Charlie Kirk, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds",
B) Professor Dycus refers to federal statute, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 7 when he reprimands the Town of Strafford for flying the flag at half-staff. How does this reconcile with 4 U.S.C. Sec 6? Which reads, in part (under paragraph d)
"...and such other days as may be proclaimed by the President of the United States"
To us mere mortals, A) and B) empower us to fly our country's flag at half mast. I would further argue that all public agencies, given the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of our Constitution, should be allowed to follow the orders of the President of the United States regardless of State directives (or lack thereof) or politically motivated individuals like Professor Dycus.
Side note: one can't help but draw an absurd but illustrative example to our 1860s Civil War where State versus Federal laws collided. In fact, much of the drama in the history of Americana sandboxes can be cast as conflicts between State and Federal rights.
Back to my complaint.
C) VLS Opportunity
Requiring public agencies to pause & consult expert legal advice, or pursue lengthy and even more expensive court remedies, for these types of inconsequential matters is far more paralyzing and detrimental to our operations than responding to the rants (disguised as free legal advice) from a Vermont Law School professor.
Here's an idea:
1-800-Ask-Steve.
Perhaps, in the spirit of working together to make Vermont great again, perhaps VLS could offer a 24x7 legal advice hotline so that Town Clerks and Selectboards (who literally work at all hours) can avoid these simple but egregious mistakes.
D) References
President Proclamation via WhiteHouse.Gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/honoring-the-memory-of-charlie-kirk/
US Code Title 4 Section 6
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title4-section6&num=0&edition=prelim
US Code Title 4 Section 7
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title4-section7&num=0&edition=prelim
VLGS IT Acceptable Use Policy
https://www.vermontlaw.edu/policies/it-acceptable-use-policy