Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the town manager statute in the codification of laws regulating town officers. See 1917 G.L. § 3992 (“[T]he overseer of the poor shall be under the control and direction of the selectmen, and may, for cause, be removed by them.”). And the term was recognized by the courts as placing a limit on the discretion of employers to terminate employment at will. See Rutter, 89 Vt. at 26, 93 A. at 848 (stating that under city charter that requires cause for removal “there must be something which in law amounts to incapacity, negligence or bad conduct, to sustain the removal”). The Legislature continues to use the term “for cause” as a limit on an employer’s removal power, even absent use of the word “only.” See, e.g., Turnley v. Town of Vernon, 2013 VT 42, ¶¶ 13-19, 194 Vt. 42, 71 A.3d 1246 . Clearly the Legislature was cognizant of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the cause of action
B. recognizing that 24 vsa  1931a which states that officers shall hold office during good behavior unless sooner removed for cause authorizes town to remove police chief only for cause
C. recognizing cause of action
D. holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council
E. holding that under state law the police commissioners are not authorized to remove police officers at will but for good and sufficient cause and after due hearing emphasis added
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.