Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H694 to let Bennington contracts alter town-manager removal notice
Summary
The Senate Committee on Government Operations on March 17 reviewed H694, which would amend Bennington's charter section 406 to allow a town-manager contract to specify notice terms that differ from the default 90-day removal notice; staff will draft clarified language and follow up with sponsors.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations on March 17 examined H694, a one-page bill that would amend section 406 of the Bennington charter to make the statutory 90-day removal notice for a town manager subject to modification by contract.
Tucker Anderson of Legislative Council told the committee that H694 "amends one section of the town of Bennington, section 406 related to the removal of the town manager." Anderson said the bill would preserve the 90-day written-notice default "unless expressly modified by contract," effectively allowing future employment agreements to set alternate notice terms.
Committee members clarified the change's practical effect. One member noted the bill appears designed to let towns modernize contract language rather than to enable removal during an active contract and asked why the rule must live in the charter rather than only in employment contracts. Anderson responded that "the charter would be binding on the contract" and that this change would give towns clear authority to negotiate different terms in future contracts.
Members also raised drafting and stylistic issues. A member recounted that when a colleague read the current wording, they reacted, "No, that's not right. It should be 'with notice,' not 'on notice.'" The committee said Legislative Council would correct obvious grammatical or typographical errors and flag constitutional or legal issues for sponsors as needed.
The transcript cites a prior town-meeting vote on the matter (1231 to 799 in 2005) and a committee vote recorded in the record as "10:01," which the committee noted needs clarification in the paperwork; no committee vote on H694 occurred during the March 17 session. Members agreed the item represented low procedural risk and that staff would follow up with the sponsor rather than insist on immediate in-person testimony.
The committee did not take formal action on H694. Staff said they would prepare clarified statutory language, coordinate with Representative Corkran and Representative Will Breer on sponsor vetting, and send any revised language to town officials for confirmation before the committee schedules further consideration.
