Burlington Reforms Police Communications Policy, Replacing Executive Oversight with Strict Internal Controls
The changes follow a high-profile dispute earlier this year between the mayor and then-Police Chief Jon Murad.
After months of controversy over police communications and mayoral oversight, the City of Burlington has implemented a formal policy prohibiting the police department from including a suspect’s criminal history, character, or number of prior police contacts in public press releases.
According to city officials, the revised policy—part of a broader update to Burlington Police Department’s Directive 30—replaces a temporary executive order issued in January by Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. That order, which drew criticism from some law enforcement advocates and press freedom organizations, required the Mayor’s Office to review and approve all press releases issued by the department before publication.
The new policy was adopted by the Burlington Police Commission and announced by the mayor on July 23. According to the city’s statement, it was designed to restore routine press operations within the police department while ensuring that communications “adhere to shared standards for factual accuracy and transparency.”
Under the updated directive, BPD press releases are prohibited from including “any statements about the character, reputation, number of police involvements, or criminal record of a person.” Instead, they are to be limited to concise factual descriptions of incidents relevant to public safety. The policy also designates the police chief or a public information officer as the internal reviewer of all communications, with sensitive cases potentially requiring higher-level consultation.
The changes follow a high-profile dispute earlier this year between the mayor and then-Police Chief Jon Murad, whose press release in late 2024 highlighted the lengthy criminal history of a Burlington man, Michael Reynolds. Murad’s statement, which included commentary on Vermont’s habitual offender statute and questioned the courts’ handling of repeat offenders, prompted a legal motion by the defense and support from Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George requesting a gag order on the department.
At the time, Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak described the press release as a violation of basic principles of fairness and due process. “People need the basic facts of situations for the sake of public safety and nothing more than that,” she said in January. According to her office, the executive order was intended as a stopgap measure while a new internal communications policy could be developed by the department and the Police Commission.
Legal scholars have generally agreed that such restrictions are within a municipality’s authority. Jared Carter, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School, noted earlier this year that public employees—including police—do not have unlimited First Amendment rights when speaking in their official capacities. “Government employers have a right to regulate speech that could compromise operations or infringe on constitutional protections, including the right to a fair trial,” Carter said in an interview in January.
Burlington’s new directive aligns with longstanding media policies issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and law enforcement associations, which discourage releasing information that could prejudice potential jurors. A media guide from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, for instance, advises against releasing a suspect’s prior criminal record or character details following an arrest.
But some law enforcement officials and media advocates have criticized the move as overreach. Michael Donoghue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association, said earlier this year that the mayor’s initial executive order set a troubling precedent by placing all police communications under political control. “Having so much oversight over the police… may not bode well for the future of the department,” Donoghue said.
Similar concerns were raised by public safety advocates who argue that omitting a suspect’s history prevents the public from understanding patterns of repeat criminal behavior. In the case of Reynolds, Chief Murad had cited over 1,800 police encounters involving the suspect, which he said illustrated systemic failures in dealing with chronic offenders. Some residents said that information helped them understand both the challenges facing officers and the need for policy change.
Critics have also questioned whether the policy was necessary to preserve fair trials. According to Donoghue, Vermont courts have never thrown out a case due to pretrial publicity in the state’s 200-year history. “There’s no evidence that releasing factual information in a press release has compromised a jury,” he said.
Still, others see the directive as a necessary recalibration. “It’s about fairness and restraint,” said one commissioner who helped draft the revised policy but was not authorized to speak publicly. “The goal is not to withhold information, but to make sure that what we share doesn’t taint legal proceedings or become advocacy masquerading as public safety.”
The mayor’s office echoed that sentiment in rescinding the executive order. “This step affirms our commitment to maintaining a fair, transparent, and respectful approach to public information,” Mulvaney-Stanak said in her July 23 statement.
With a new interim chief, Shawn Burke, in place and the directive now embedded within the department’s internal operations, both City Hall and BPD say the issue has been resolved. However, the debate over transparency versus restraint in police communications is likely to continue.
As other Vermont communities and police departments review their own media practices, Burlington’s case may offer a unique example of how local government can shift the tone and content of law enforcement communications—by policy, by executive action, or both. While the new directive adheres to national legal standards, it also highlights the local tensions between public safety, political oversight, and civil liberties.