A story published a few days ago by VTDigger sparked my curiosity about the status of the extremely phallic Bennington Battle Monument, which I have dubbed Vermont’s “Gilded Age tribute to toxic masculinity.” When last I wrote about this “ponderous pecker,” news had come out that the thing was made of highly absorbent limestone that had, of course, become waterlogged. Repairs were estimated at about $40 million, to which I responded that we ought to just blow the damn thing up.

The latest Digger piece reported that the state is about to hold two public meetings to discuss what to do with the Monument. What it didn’t report is that the $40 million figure is nothing more than a semi-educated guess. Nobody knows how much it would really cost, or the price tag for ongoing maintenance if we do fix it up. That’s partly because the state lacks critical data, thanks to the deeply troubled VTBuys contracting and payment portal — yet another demerit in Gov. Phil Scott’s ineffectual efforts to reinvent state government.

We take you back to February 10, and a hearing of the House Corrections & Institutions Committee that went completely uncovered by the sleepy watchdogs of our news media. I came across it as I poked around for more information about Digger’s latest story. But anyone with an interest in the Monument, or in the orderly function of state government, needs to know what went on that day.

The committee was considering its part of the FY2027 state budget; the witnesses were Laura Trieschmann and Jamie Duggan from the Division for Historic Preservation, a department within the Agency for Commerce and Community Development.

They did not come with a request for funding in the new year because they didn’t have enough information to decide how to proceed. They’d undertaken a multiyear data collection effort, but the data for 2025 hadn’t been turned over to the state because of delays in implementing a new contract. As committee chair Alice Emmons put it, ““VT Buys screwed everything up, basically.”

The contractor won’t turn over the 2025 data until they get paid, which is understandable. We haven’t heard much about VTBuys since last summer, when many state contractors were reporting trouble receiving payment for services already rendered. Apparently the situation hasn’t improved since then.

Also hamstrung by VTBuys: the Division’s efforts to do some troubleshooting and upgrading of the Monument’s elevator, which was shuttered last year due to safety concerns. Once that gets settled, uncertainties lie ahead. Trieschmann: ““We’re gonna have to figure out how do we explore having an elevator, essentially an indoor elevator working in the outdoor environment inside the monument. It’s a very hard condition to operate in.”

Great. A feature that greatly increases tourist traffic (as we shall see below) and they’re not sure how to make it workable?

And that, my friends, is the least of the Monument’s problems. “I’m not here asking for any more money at the moment,” Duggan told the Committee. “I’m asking for the time to be able to spend the money we have available to get those answers to you. …I’m sorry that we’re not that far along at this point.”

Rep. Mary Morrissey who, as a representative of Bennington, has a close interest in the Monument, expressed dismay. “We still don’t know what we’re doing or how we even got to the figure of $40 million,” she said. “So the discussion’s been pretty disingenuous altogether.”

Fellow Republican Kevin Winter sounded very much like a “No” vote on however many millions the restoration might require. “It became in disrepair years ago because they didn’t want to fund it then,” he remarked. “So if they didn’t want to fund it then, why do we think we want to fund it in the future [when] we don’t even know how much it’s going to cost?”

That’s not only the unknown bill for repairs, but also the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Trieschmann, the chief steward of the Monument and other state-owned historic sites, acknowledged that if the operating costs were $1 million or more, “it’s not gonna be open.”

Democratic committee member Rep. Shawn Sweeney also expressed green-eyeshade skepticism: “It seems like a waste of taxpayer money,” he said. “It’s hard for me to trust that we’re heading in the right direction.” Other lawmakers didn’t comment directly on cost and feasibility, but that’s three members across party lines on a 10-member committee who are disinclined to buy this particular pig in a poke. At a time when state budgets are tight as an Edwardian corset and everyone’s looking to cut expenses.

Trieschmann and Duggan expressed optimism that the VTBuys bottleneck would soon be overcome. Emmons concluded the hearing by giving them an open invitation to return for more informed testimony, but it’s been more than two months and the Committee has yet to hear anything further. As far as we know, the data issues are unresolved and the many mysteries remain. Thanks, VTBuys!

Meanwhile, the Monument isn’t getting any healthier. Part of last year’s work involved what Duggan called an “industrial ropes team …rappelling down the side of the monument with their equipment, taking photographs and surveying conditions.” Also removing bucketloads of “loose material.”

Gee, that sounds promising.

One more thing. Trieschmann has touted the Monument as “one of our most visited sites, and also one of our highest grossing gift shops.” I’m sure that’s true, but we’re not talking about very much traffic or very much revenue at all. In 2024, the Monument drew just under 40,000 visitors, an average of 110 visitors per day. The revenue was $276,000 — less than $7 per visitor.

It got worse last year when the elevator was taken off line. Total visitation plummeted to less than 14,000, and revenue declined to $201,000. And per Trieschmann’s testimony, they don’t know how to make an elevator viable in the Monument’s deeply unusual interior environment.

The Bennington Battle Monument might be Trieschmann’s top site, but it’d be way, way down the list of all Vermont’s tourism draws. It doesn’t hold a candle to the Statehouse or the Vermont History Museum, or Ben & Jerry’s or the ECHO Center or the Vermont Teddy Bear factory or the Shelburne Museum or any of our ski areas or dozens of other sites around Vermont. Hell, the Bennington area would see more economic impact from a nice miniature golf course, maybe with a gourmet hot dog and creemee stand.

I thought I was going way out on a limb when I called for the Monument’s destruction, but it turns out I might not be far from the mainstream. Unless the Division’s delayed data shows a much more positive situation than anyone expects, it’s hard to see the state ponying up tens of millions for necessary repairs.

It’s also hard to imagine the state letting the Monument fall into ruin because of Vermonters’ sometimes unhealthy attachment to any familiar feature of the landscape. But in the end, we might not have much choice in the matter. In a state famous for granite and marble, who in God’s green earth decided a massive outdoor structure should be made of absorbent limestone?

Note: This post was made possible thanks to GoldenDomeVT, an AI-powered website that provides rough transcripts of all legislative hearings. The February 10 Corrections & Institutions hearing can be found here. Each GoldenDome page includes the video of each hearing; you can highlight a section of a transcript and the video player will offer you that specific passage so you can check the accuracy of the AI transcript. It’s an extremely useful tool.