House committee reviews H.17 to adopt Morristown charter, flags town manager powers

The Vermont House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs on Feb. 1 at 1 p.m. reviewed H.17, a bill that would adopt a charter for the town of Morristown, and raised questions about a provision that would give the town manager broad personnel authority.

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson gave the committee a run-through of H.17 "as introduced," describing three substantive sections: Section 1 would approve adoption of the charter; Section 2 contains a redesignation to keep charter listings in alphabetical order; and Section 3 establishes a town manager system and, in subsection B, grants the manager authority "to hire, appoint, discipline, and remove all town employees subject to the provisions of personnel rules approved by the select board." Anderson flagged subsection B as the bill's primary deviation from general municipal law and said it mirrors language adopted for the town of Waterbury last session.

The issue matters because, Anderson said, the General Assembly amended 17 V.S.A. §2631 in 2017 to standardize how general law and charter law interact. He told the committee that the amendment was intended to avoid differing charter-specific legislative-interpretation provisions and that the Assembly has generally removed duplicative charter language when reviewing new charters. Anderson also cited Vermont case law practice—specifically the Supreme Court's approach—to explain that charters are ordinarily harmonized with general law where possible.

Committee members pressed how subsection B would function in practice. Representative Hubert said it was notable that the charter language could create a form of "unilateral authority" for the town manager by excluding the select board from hiring and removal decisions. Representative Pismo asked whether the committee had ever denied a charter and said, "Oh, we have," while Representative Coffin and other members signaled they wanted more time to consult with town officials and staff about the provision.

Anderson cautioned that, in his view, the subsection as written is "not express enough to allow the town manager to subvert major law," and that labor- or contract-based protections would remain applicable; he also referenced the Vermont Supreme Court decision in Downtown District Tax Challengers v. City of Rutland as part of the larger jurisprudence on municipal delegations of authority.

No votes were taken on H.17. The committee agreed to seek additional information from the town and to schedule another session to continue the review this week. The meeting recessed for a 10-minute break at the close of the discussion.

For background: the committee noted the town borrowed some charter language from Colchester and that the exact redesignation in Section 2 is an administrative step to keep chartered chapters in alphabetical order; committee staff also said one charter adopted last session (Waterbury) used language similar to subsection B.