This story by Carla Ocasso was first published in The Bridge on Feb. 24
Montpelier’s City Council, after unanimously voting earlier this month to cut ties with longtime City Manager Bill Fraser, upheld the vote last week in a contentious 4-2 split decision, authorizing a roughly $236,000 severance package stipulated in his contract.
If Fraser had been allowed to retire — as two councilors at the special meeting on Feb. 19 said was widely known to be his near-future plan — the roughly quarter of a million dollar severance package and attending costs triggered by ending his contract could have been avoided.
The current iteration of the city manager’s employment agreement was entered into on Feb. 23, 2022, and was valid through March 1, 2026, according to the contract posted online. It was approved without discussion as part of the consent agenda, according to meeting minutes. Councilors at that time were Dona Bate, Conor Casey, Jack McCullough, Jennifer Morton, Lauren Hierl and Jay Ericson.
The agreement, which was a successor to a prior contract that ran from March 1, 2019 through March 1, 2022, stipulated the triggers and apportionments of a severance payout. First, the severance package would be due if the manager’s contract is ended even though he or she is willing and able to continue work. Fraser would have been entitled to a lump sum of cash equal to five months of employment (defined as 22 weeks), “plus one additional week per year of completed employment up to a maximum total of 52 weeks aggregate salary.”
Since Fraser’s involuntary nonrenewal happened in February 2025, he is entitled to the maximum full year payout, according to the contract’s obligations.
Therefore, Fraser is scheduled to receive $236,775, of which “$161,255 is for one year’s salary, $41,160 for one year’s health insurance, and $1,000 for waiver of any age discrimination claims,” a cover sheet for the contract states. And, “the total of $203,415 will cost the City an additional $33,360 in mandatory payroll contributions to Social Security, Medicare, and Vermont Municipal Employees Retirement System.”
The funds are set to be drawn from the general fund reserve unless otherwise directed. Additional itemized expenses include fees for attorneys, including Sarah Buxton and Michael Tarrant from Tarrant, Gillies, and Shems as well as attorney Ed Adrian from Mongahan-Saffar. The attorneys are tasked with reviewing “the manager’s contract as well as prepare and negotiate the separation agreement with the city manager,” the cover sheet states. The new agreement, which was signed by Mayor Jack McCullough and Fraser on Feb. 14, has an end date of June 30, 2025 instead of March 1, 2026.
Per the contract, if either Fraser resigned at the council’s request or the council failed to renew his contract upon expiration, Fraser would have been allowed to collect severance if his employment is sharply curtailed or terminated, including if his salary and benefits were reduced below an across-the-board reduction of unclassified employees,. However, Fraser would not have been allowed to get the payout had he been convicted of committing a crime or if he resigned on his own terms.
This council action has caused lively public discourse on Front Porch Forum. Tory Rhodin, for example, wrote that they were concerned about the amount of money to be spent on the payout, and that there is no guarantee the next city manager would be better. Tina Muncy wrote that she trusts the city council to have made the best decision, and thanked them for their courage. Eve Jacobs-Carnahan wrote she believes it is time for a change, and said she was grateful to the city council for making the decision they made. Sari Wolf urged voters to find out who voted to end Fraser’s contract early and “vote in accordance.” Cathy Gram wrote that she believes Fraser has become a scapegoat for the city’s problems and that a new manager would do no better.
Before voting to ratify the separation, Mayor Jack McCullough said that every council member has the right to speak in public and to state their reasons for their vote. He also said he feels it is their duty to explain why they voted the way they did. And thus, he opened discussion to councilors.
“I don’t wish to see Bill terminated and I never have. … I have always been in favor of giving Bill the respect of retiring on his own terms, which we knew he was working on,” Councilor Cary Brown said. “I never thought that forcing him to leave by not renewing his contract was reasonable, necessary or appropriate. But it became clear to me that I was in a minority on the city council on that opinion and so I tried to focus on creating the best plan for his departure as possible,” Brown said. She further explained she had voted for the termination because she wrongly believed “council unity” would be better for the process, but now she thinks it was a mistake. Brown went on to praise Fraser for doing an outstanding job, his depth of knowledge, integrity, and dedication to the people of Montpelier.
Councilor Lauren Hierl expressed similar sentiments by saying, “We have a city manager who has served for close to 30 years, and in my six years on council I found Bill to be an engaged, thoughtful, and caring manager who took really seriously the problems in our community and worked diligently to recommend solutions.” She said Fraser had told people he would be retiring soon, and had been discussing it for years. She explained she had voted to terminate his contract to show the city and Fraser had agreed to terms, but that she was disappointed in how the process played out.
But those were the opinions of the minority.
Adrienne Gil spoke with a sharp tone of voice, saying she had run on a platform of new leadership, and that she strongly believes in term limits. She drew a parallel between Montpelier’s government and the U.S. federal government.
“We look at our supreme court. We look at how that has ended up and where we are right now,” she said, adding that term limits prevent entrenched power and stagnation, and encourage innovation. “30 years in my opinion is too long,” she said. “This is not a personal decision. It is a business decision.” She also criticized the “divisiveness that has happened” because of her and three other council member’s choice to not renew Fraser’s contract, and attributed the divisiveness to lies and “misfacts” that really hurt the city.
Gil also criticized the terms of Fraser’s agreement that give him a year’s salary plus benefits and other remuneration. “We were handed this contract,” she said of herself and other new members on the council, and called the separation agreement severance terms a “golden parachute.” She said she was “very much” in favor of not renewing, and added that she had previously unfairly been kept out of conversations mentioning Bill’s planned retirement, which prevented her from making an “educated, data-driven decision,” but that she will still vote to not renew the contract. Having such a contract for a city manager is not uncommon, she said.
Councilor Tim Heney, while not stating his reasons for supporting an end to Fraser’s contract, said the council had to make the decision to renew, extend, or terminate by March 1, 2025. The contract gives Fraser a year’s notice on an agreement that would have ended March 1, 2026.
“The decision that the council needed to make was one of those three choices,” Heney said. “This contract provides the employee with a severance package in several circumstances including nonrenewal or termination of the contract, so we were working with a contract that has been in place for a number of years and we didn’t create.”
Councilor Pelin Kohn said she had no choice other than to vote to not renew the contract, saying, “I have been working over 20 years in the public sector. Now I started to work for a public college, and I have never seen a contract like that. … This contract didn’t give us too much choice to do differently.” She went on to thank Fraser for his service and his commitment to Montpelier.
Councilor Sal Alfano said he was not surprised about the confusion out in the public, but that he was surprised about confusion among council members. “We had three attorneys review this and I think we all know the severance would be paid one way or the other whether the contract was terminated or not renewed.” He further said he supports nonrenewal and will support ratification even though he had a good experience working with Fraser.
A few members of the public spoke as well. Steve Whitaker said the council has been negligent for years by allowing this contract to stand. He also listed several big projects he felt Fraser “bungled.” Marc Gwinn said the number one priority for the next council must be to find a new city manager. Jacob Sargent said Fraser was not doing his job and asked the council to stop giving “people like him” a golden parachute. Zack Hughes said he was deeply concerned about the decision in light of the “brutal” budget cutting process and asked, “Are you telling me you could not wait and let Bill retire? This is wrong,” he said. Stan Brinkerhoff asked if council terminated the agreement or if it was a nonrenewal.
Fraser responded to Brinkerhoff’s question from a remote location because he had a “medical thing going on.” He said it is not true that he would have been paid money no matter how this played out. “If I choose to retire or leave voluntarily, I would not be paid severance,” he said. “I get paid for involuntary leaving service whether you call it a nonrenewal or a termination or something else, it is still all the same and that is what occurred. The words are semantic. The reason for that is, in Vermont law for public employees, (the) council would have to establish there was just cause.”
Fraser went on to say there is “nothing approaching” just cause in this case. “A termination could be done at the complete discretion of the council. The money is only spent if the council chooses to spend it,” Fraser said.
Jim Sheridan, a former council member, said he was on the council that gave Bill the severance agreement, and that he had voted against it at the time. He added that he was excited for a new leader.
Then, after public comment, Heney moved to ratify the separation agreement and a general release of claims as presented, which he approved, as did Alfano, Kohn, and Gil. Brown and Hierl voted against it.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Montpelier council split on city manager’s exit, still approves ‘golden parachute’ payout.