Montpelier council ratifies separation agreement with long-serving city manager

The Montpelier City Council ratified a separation agreement with City Manager Bill at a regularly scheduled meeting, a move councilors said was constrained by terms in the manager’s employment contract and Vermont law.

Councilors voted to “ratify the separation agreement and general release of claims as presented,” a motion made by Councilor Tim Palin and seconded by a councilor who identified as Sal. During the roll call on the motion, two councilors voted no; the motion carried.

The vote capped a lengthy public and council discussion about whether the council could have handled the manager’s departure differently and about the financial cost to taxpayers. Councilor Lauren (full name not specified) said she planned to vote no to register her disappointment with the process and with what she described as roughly “a quarter million dollars” in taxpayer cost stemming from the severance arrangement. “We have a city manager who has served our community for close to 30 years,” Lauren said, adding the outcome divided the community and made an already-difficult budget year “hard to stomach.”

Councilor Carrie (full name not specified) also said she would vote no while calling the separation agreement “fair” and explaining that she did not want to see the manager terminated. Carrie said she had voted for nonrenewal previously as a means of preserving unity and to ensure the manager would be granted the severance package spelled out in his contract; she said the manager will remain in place through the end of the fiscal year to assist with transition planning.

Adrienne (full name not specified), who identified herself as a first‑year councilor, said she ran on a platform favoring new leadership and supported the decision not to renew the contract. Other councilors who spoke said the city was bound by contract language that limited the council’s practical options. A councilor briefing on the record clarified that the manager’s contract required the council to act by March 1 on whether to renew, extend or terminate the contract for the following year.

City Manager Bill, who later addressed the meeting, said the practical effect of the contract language and Vermont law was that a nonrenewal, termination or similar action could trigger the same severance payment. He told the council and public that the contract provisions were intended to give the council flexibility to make a change but that the severance payment is the cost that accompanies that flexibility. Bill also described that, without the contractual severance provision, Vermont law would have required a public hearing, a showing of just cause, and would have left the decision subject to outside review or litigation.

Members of the public and former officials addressed the council during the item. Jim Sheridan, a former councilor, said he served on the council that approved the contract provisions that now require severance in certain departures and said the community should now move on. Several residents asked for greater transparency from individual councilors about their decision-making process; some speakers described fiscal concerns and disappointment that the departure could not have been timed to avoid a large payout.

Mayor and council procedural remarks noted that executive-session confidentiality limits what councilors can disclose about closed-session deliberations, but individual councilors retain the right to explain their personal reasons for how they voted. Stan (resident) asked for clarification whether the June 30 date referenced in prior meetings represented a termination date or a nonrenewal; council comments on the record explained that, under the contract language, nonrenewal is treated equivalently to termination for severance purposes. The council formally approved the separation agreement by voice vote; two councilors recorded no votes and the motion carried.

The council did not adopt additional policy actions at the meeting related to the separation beyond ratifying the agreement. Councilors who supported ratification said the city must now move forward to conduct a national search for a successor and to define priorities for a new manager.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.