WINSLOW — After considering giving the town manager a higher payout in the event she is fired without cause, the town councilors voted at their meeting Monday to revoke their ability to fire the town manager without reason altogether.

Winslow Town Manager Ella Bowman Photo courtesy of Ella Bowman

Winslow’s town charter gives councilors the ability to fire the town manager “for cause” by a two-thirds vote, though Town Manager Ella Bowman’s contract allows the town to fire her without cause by a simple majority — and entitles her to six months’ salary and health insurance if they do.

Councilors were slated to discuss an item Monday night that proposed raising that payout from six months to one year.

Before they could consider amending Bowman’s contract, town legal counsel Stephen Langsdorf said that entire portion of Bowman’s contract violated state law, as municipalities cannot fire employees without just cause.

“This was requested by the manager to amend the contract to change the potential terms of a payout,” Langsdorf said. “This type of a clause, of termination without cause, shouldn’t be in a town manager’s contract at all.”

The initial proposal to increase Bowman’s payout upon termination comes after months of unrest and tension in Winslow’s town office. In July, Councilor Mike Joseph requested a protective order against Bowman for yelling and wagging her finger at him. A judge later denied Joseph’s request.

Winslow councilors have convened six closed-door executive sessions in the two months since to discuss personnel matters and consult with legal counsel. Bowman was asked not to attend the first executive session after Joseph’s request as “it was matters pertaining to the council and council only,” according to other councilors.

Langsdorf, who provided legal counsel at many of those executive sessions, is a partner with law firm Preti Flaherty, which has provided services for many Maine municipalities. He attended the meeting in lieu of Town Attorney William A. Lee III, who typically attends Winslow council meetings.

Winslow’s town charter allows the council to remove the manager “for cause” by a two-thirds vote, but does not lay out a process of removing the manager without cause. Because the town charter legally supersedes Bowman’s contract, Langsdorf said that portion of the contract would not hold up in court.

At Monday’s meeting, Langsdorf cited a 2019 lawsuit in which Rumford’s former town manager sued the town after being fired without cause through a similar provision in her contract. Rumford ultimately paid the former manager $250,000 to settle the dispute.

Bowman’s contract is nearly identical to that of Rumford’s former manager, Langsdorf said. Winslow would be leaving the door open to potential lawsuits by leaving that portion of Bowman’s contract in place, he warned.

“Anyone who’s a public employee has a due process right because their employment is considered property. The court held in this case that it was unfair to require a manager to waive their due process rights,” he said. “My recommendation at this time is that you amend this order to strike that clause from the contract entirely.”

The initial proposal to increase Bowman’s payout if fired was only made to assuage concerns that she would be removed from office over political or social disagreements rather than serious misconduct, Bowman said during the meeting.

“I’m fine with removing that part of the contract,” Bowman said. “As far as the more money, it was only for termination without cause. It wasn’t with cause. So if I had four votes that made me go away then that would have been the discussion point, but this just cleans up the entire contract.”

Winslow councilors ultimately voted to remove that portion of Bowman’s contract by a 5-1 vote. Councilors Joseph, Dale Macklin, Jeff West, Lee Trahan and Adam Lint voted in favor. Councilor Fran Hudson was the lone vote in opposition.

Joseph and Hudson raised questions about the legality of Bowman’s contract in light of the discussions at Monday’s meeting. Joseph asked if it was legal for Bowman to have signed the contract at all, given that part of it broke the law.

“That one line, according to the case, was not valid when it was signed and just shouldn’t be a part of the agreement. It doesn’t have any effect on the validity of every other term in the contract,” Langsdorf explained.

Hudson questioned the council’s ability to alter Bowman’s contract at all given that it partly violates state law and directly contradicts the town charter. She suggested postponing discussion on the matter because the changes Langsdorf suggested were not on the meeting’s agenda.

“I thought that a contract was binding once you signed it, whether it’s a charter or not,” Hudson said. “I thought we were discussing an increase in money tonight. I didn’t know we were discussing removing something.”

The meeting’s agenda stated that councilors would discuss amending Bowman’s contract but did not specify what those changes would look like.

An informational packet given to councilors proposed the six-month to one-year increase in benefits to Bowman if terminated, but Langsdorf noted that it is not unusual or uncommon for towns to amend agenda items after learning new information.

Discussion on the matter ultimately concluded when councilor Dale Macklin moved to waive the second reading of the new contract and let it take effect immediately.

“I think we’ve got to get this behind us and move forward,” Macklin said. “Let’s get it over with tonight.”

The motion was passed by a 4-2 vote, with Joseph and Hudson in opposition.