The Mountain Times

Haff petition stalled at gate

Haff petition stalled at gate
By Stephen Seitz
KILLINGTON - A petition brought by Killington Selectman Jim Haff to have the town's voters set the town manager's salary each year through a special town meeting is unlikely to go forward.
Town manager Seth Webb told the board that in the opinions of town attorney Mark Sperry and Vermont League of Cities and Towns senior staff attorney Jim Barlow, Haff's petition did not meet statutory requirements.
The petition sought a special town meeting this year to set Webb's salary, and for a special meeting each succeeding January for that purpose.
"While the voters are authorized … to fix the compensation of town officers and town employees, they are only authorized to do so at an annual town meeting," Barlow wrote in an April 2 letter to Webb. "The voters do not have the authority, as this petition would suggest, to petition to have special town meetings on an annual basis."
The board of selectmen adjourned without taking an actual vote on Haff's petition. Chairman Chris Bianchi said a formal vote would be taken at the regular meeting on April 10.
Much of the discussion, however, centered around a comment from Selectman Bernard Rome to the Mountain Times, to the effect that the Haff petition was "illegal."
"That sounds like I was engaged in some sort of illegal activity," Haff said, "not whether this was an invalid petition."
"I can see how it would be taken that way," Bianchi said.
Rome wanted to know what word choice would be acceptable.
"Are you saying I shouldn't talk to newspapers, or are you just objecting to the use of the word?" he asked.
"I just think the word 'illegal' should be taken off," Haff replied.
Resident Vito Resenas wanted to know how the town could set the town manager's salary at the annual town meeting when Killington uses the Australian ballot now.
Bianchi said it was his belief that voters wanting to set salaries of town employees would need a petition article for that purpose, but it would have to detail the salaries of all town employees.
"The Secretary of State has plenty of material on that," he said. "The board will research this further."
The board did move forward with a special town meeting to ask voters whether they should keep the town manager form of government. The meeting is in response to a petition filed by resident Melvin Neisner.
The meeting had originally been scheduled for May 8, but the new date for the vote is Monday, May 7.
"The town is talking about paying too much for the town manager," Haff said. "Proctor has a town administrator. I think there should be more discussion about whether we should have a town manager or a town administrator."
 An informational meeting on the special vote has yet to be scheduled.