Burlington Council Debates Financial Disclosure Requirements That Are Very Likely Illegal
Vermont statutes do not provide a general law granting municipalities the authority to create their own financial disclosure requirements for local candidates.
On October 6, 2025, the Burlington City Council took up a debate on government transparency that, while seemingly straightforward, touched upon fundamental questions of legal authority and political accountability.
Initial news reports captured the immediate events of the meeting, but a full understanding of the issue requires a deeper dive into Vermont’s legal framework, the history of the institutions involved, and the broader context of financial reform in the city. This article aims to provide that comprehensive picture, so that Vermonters can form their own well-rounded conclusions.
A Recap of the Council’s Debate
As reported by Seven Days, the Burlington City Council considered a proposal from Councilor Carter Neubieser (P-Ward 1) on the evening of October 6, 2025. The measure would require candidates for city council, school board, and mayor to file financial disclosures covering their income, business interests, and lobbying activities. According to the reporting, the proposal is modeled on similar requirements that already exist for state-level candidates in Vermont.
The discussion on the council floor reflected a clear partisan divide. Councilor Neubieser, according to the article, framed the proposal as a necessary step to maintain “a culture of transparency in government.” In contrast, several Democratic councilors voiced concerns, arguing the measure could be “overkill for a position that earns a meager stipend” and might be “weaponized” to fuel personal attacks against candidates.
Ultimately, the council did not vote on final passage. Instead, as reported, the measure was referred to the council’s Ordinance Committee for further debate on an 8-4 vote.
While this reporting accurately summarizes the proceedings, a complete understanding requires exploring the legal and historical context that was not part of the initial coverage.
The Political Landscape and Stakeholder Interests
The arguments presented at the council meeting are best understood by examining the priorities of the key stakeholders and the institutional history that informs their positions.
The Partisan Divide: Progressive vs. Democratic Priorities
The Progressive position, as articulated by Councilor Neubieser, is rooted in a platform of structural reform. According to public statements from his bid for Council President, Neubieser has emphasized increasing collaboration and ensuring the public has substantive opportunities to engage with policy. The financial disclosure proposal aligns with this philosophy, presented as a standard tool to empower voters and guard against potential conflicts of interest.
The Democratic position, as articulated by opponents in the Seven Days article, reflects a more cautious, institutionalist perspective. Their arguments prioritize protecting the current system and its participants from perceived threats. According to the report, their primary concerns focused on redundancy with existing policies and the potential for the disclosures to deter qualified individuals from running for office. This stance weighs the recruitment and protection of candidates heavily against the public’s demand for more information.
Jurisdictional and Legal Analysis: Is It Legal?
Beyond the political debate, the central question is whether the Burlington City Council has the legal power to enact this ordinance on its own. A review of Vermont’s legal framework suggests the answer is almost certainly no.
The Decisive Obstacle: The Limits of Municipal Power in Vermont
The primary legal hurdle is a foundational principle of Vermont law known as “Dillon’s Rule.” As explained by sources such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in its guide to Vermont government, the state does not grant “Home Rule” to its municipalities. This means local governments like Burlington possess only the powers expressly granted to them by the state legislature through statute or a state-approved municipal charter.
Vermont statutes do not provide a general law granting municipalities the authority to create their own financial disclosure requirements for local candidates. In fact, the state has already legislated in this area. According to Vermont Statute 17 V.S.A. § 2414, candidates for State office, county office, State Senator, and State Representative are required to file comprehensive financial disclosures. The state legislature’s decision to specifically list these offices while omitting municipal offices is legally significant and implies that this authority was not extended to cities and towns.
Therefore, for Burlington to legally impose such a requirement, it cannot simply pass an ordinance. It must secure explicit permission from the state through a charter change. This is a high procedural bar requiring a proposal by the City Council, approval by Burlington voters, and subsequent ratification by the Vermont General Assembly, which must then be signed into law by the Governor. The council’s recent debate was merely the first step in this long process.
Evaluating Burlington’s Existing Ethics Code
The argument that a “robust ethics policy” already makes the new proposal redundant is not supported by a close reading of the existing code. According to Burlington’s Municipal Code of Ethics (§ 1991 et seq.), the framework is designed to govern the conduct of current municipal officers. Its core function is to establish a procedure for recusal when a seated official faces a conflict of interest. It is a reactive mechanism, not a proactive disclosure tool for voters evaluating candidates. The proposed ordinance serves a fundamentally different purpose, making the two policies complementary, not duplicative.
The Broader Context of Financial Reform in Burlington
The push for candidate financial disclosure is not happening in a vacuum. It is part of a larger conversation in Burlington about financial transparency and equity.
Section 5: Key Questions for the Informed Vermonter
To move beyond the day-to-day reporting and form a comprehensive opinion, Vermonters should consider the following questions:
Separate the Merit from the Method: Is the idea of requiring financial disclosure for local candidates a good one for promoting transparency in Burlington, even if the current process for enacting it is legally complex and requires state approval?
Evaluate the “Chilling Effect” Argument: How much weight should be given to the concern that disclosure requirements might deter qualified citizens from running for low-paying public service positions? Does this potential risk outweigh the public benefit of identifying conflicts of interest? How does the fact that the state already imposes this requirement on its own legislators inform your view?
Understand the Real Political Battleground: The debate in Burlington’s City Hall is only a preliminary stage. If the proposal advances, the ultimate decision will not be made locally. The true political battle will be fought in the Vermont State House. The key question will be whether state legislators believe that the transparency standards they are subject to should also apply to officials in the state’s largest city.
By considering these deeper legal, political, and historical contexts, Vermonters can engage with this issue from a fully informed perspective and decide for themselves what the best path forward should be.