NORWICH — The Selectboard will hold an special meeting on Thursday to respond to a resident’s complaint alleging the board violated Vermont’s open meeting laws when it amended Town Manger Brennan Duffy’s contract last month.

Kris Clement’s complaint, filed on Nov. 12, alleges the board did not engage in a “careful analysis of the need to enter into executive session before the first motion was made,” during its Oct. 9 and Oct. 23 meetings.

In the Oct. 9 meeting, the board discussed changes to Duffy’s contract in executive session. On Oct. 23, during public session, the board voted 3-2 to approve amendments which extended the town’s initial offer to pay $10,000 toward relocation expenses should Duffy move from Rutland to the Upper Valley and allowed him to continue working remotely two days a week. 

At last week’s meeting, the Selectboard voted 3-2 to task Duffy with approaching town counsel for advice on the open meeting law violation complaint.

“I don’t see that there’s any conflict of interest,” board member Marcia Calloway said, who made the motion for Duffy to contact town counsel stating the board chair doing so would be a “weird deviation,” from policy.

Duffy, found in his office on Wednesday morning, declined to speak with the Valley News.

Opponents of tasking Duffy with speaking with the town’s attorney included board Chairwoman Pam Smith and member Priscilla Vincent, who voiced concerns that it would be a conflict of interest for Duffy to seek the legal advice.

“I think given the prickliness of this issue, it would be advisable to have the chair (approach town counsel) so nobody can say we’re trying to do something nefarious,” Vincent said in the recording of the Nov. 13 meeting.

The remaining three members argued Duffy should go to town counsel because it is standard practice.

In Vermont, boards may only enter executive session if “premature general public knowledge (of the content discussed) would clearly place the public body, or a person involved at a substantial disadvantage,” or a body is discussing “confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the body,” according to Vermont League of Cities and Towns, or VLCT.

To go into executive session, a “careful analysis of the need to enter,” must be made and the board should give as much information as possible about what will be discussed, according to VLCT.

Neither the minutes nor the recordings of the two meetings reflect a board discussion before the motion to enter executive session was made.

“They did not go into careful analysis they just regurgitated the motions,” said Clement in a phone interview.

Besides not following the lawful procedure, Clement said in Tuesday’s phone interview that the executive session on Oct. 9 was not a matter of contract negotiation but of policy since the board discussed whether or not to allow Duffy to continue to work remotely.

She also argued since both parties involved in the contract (the Selectboard and Duffy) were present in the executive session, premature general public knowledge would not have placed any parties at a substantial disadvantage, the reason the board gave for entering executive session.

Clement is requesting the new contract be declared as void and the board adopt “specific measures that actually prevent future violations,” to cure the complaint.

Clement is among several other residents who are unhappy that Duffy, who began as interim town manager in December 2022, has not been, and continues to not be required to be in Norwich five days a week.

“Imagine a disaster hits and communication is knocked out,” Clement said, “who’s in charge?”

She hopes her complaint leads to a new contract amendment that the public can weigh in on.

“It’s about trying to avoid government officials making decisions behind closed doors,” she said.

At Thursday’s meeting, the board can decide to cure the complaint or reject it, in which case Clement is prepared to go to court.

If found guilty of “knowingly and intentionally” violating open meeting laws, the Selectboard members could be charged with a misdemeanor and up to $500 in fines, said Jenny Prosser, general counsel and director of municipal assistance for the Secretary of State’s Office.

“We have to balance the town manager’s right to privacy with the rights of the public to know what’s going on,” Vice Chairwoman Mary Layton said in a phone interview. “We do our best.”

The remaining Selectboard members did not respond to requests for comment and town counsel declined to comment.

This is not the first time in recent years Norwich officials have faced allegations of open meeting law violations.

In 2023, after about $100,000 in legal fees, the Selectboard voted to settle with resident Chris Katucki ending a nearly three-year lawsuit over allegations that town subcommittees were not complying with open meeting laws.

In addition to the town paying $716.37 for Katucki’s legal fees, the settlement ensured any group organized by the town manager or a board of elected or appointed members must alert the public to their meetings, open them to the public, and record the minutes.

“I’m glad that citizens are watching and are concerned,” Layton said, “I think it’s good to have citizen oversight and we should be trying to set a good example for other commissions and committees in town.”

Thursday’s meeting is at 6:30 p.m. in Tracy Hall located at 300 Main Street, or available on Zoom at us02web.zoom.us/j/89116638939.

Emma Roth-Wells can be reached at erothwells@vnews.com or 603-727-3242.

  CORRECTIONS: The Norwich Selectboard voted 3-2 on Oct. 23 to amend Town Ma nager Brennan Duffy’s contract to extend the town’s initial offer to pay $10,000 toward relocation expenses should he move from Rutland to the Upper Valley and to allow Duffy to continue working remotely two days a week. Duffy’s contract, first approved in September 2023, does not include a residency requirement. A previous version of this story gave an incorrect description of the changes made to Duffy’s contract.

The Norwich Selectboard held a special meeting on Nov. 21 to respond to the resident’s open meeting law violation complaint. A previous version of this story incorrectly categorized the meeting.