Home » News » Politics
June 12. 2012 10:45PM
Marlborough selectmen to fight right-to-know ruling
MARLBOROUGH — The board of selectmen plans to fight accusations that it is in contempt of a January court order to cease right-to-know violations, Selectman John Northcott said Tuesday.
“We feel the board is not guilty or in contempt,” he said, “We’re pretty confident we’re not in contempt.”
On Friday resident Loretta Simonds filed a petition in the Cheshire County Superior Court asking the court to find the board in contempt of a court order not to violate the right-to-know law, four months after judge Phillip P. Mangones found the board guilty of numerous violations and enjoined the board against making further violations.
In Mangones’ January decision he wrote, “Petitioners are correct that the decisions to hire the consultant and to have the consultant gather initial information were made outside of a properly held meeting with notice and minutes. In other words, the decision creating the necessity for the board to vote to ‘withdraw from the project’ were made outside of the open meeting process required by RSA 91-A:2, I. The so-called four-town meetings constituted meetings under the provision of RSA chapter 91-A,” he wrote.
Mangones also called the board out for “obviating the spirit of the right-to-know law” by holding an unlawful electronic meeting in which a previous meeting’s minutes were edited.
At the time of the decision, Northcott said the board unknowingly violated the right-to-know law and had learned its lesson.
In her new petition, Simonds alleges the selectmen continue to hold improper non-public meetings and make decisions outside of a public meeting. She also says the board has been holding public meetings in which their speech is inaudible and or indiscernible.
“We carry on a normal conversation when we’re in a meeting. My opinion is she’s trying to make a mountain out of a molehill,” Northcott said. “It’s a business meeting. It’s not a town meeting.”
He added some board of selectmen duties, such as approving an elderly property tax exemption, do not require a discussion, because the town administrative assistant has already made sure the applicant meets the criteria.
Additionally, Simonds said, the board has violated the right-to-know law in a different way, she said, by releasing to her 35 copies of sealed non-public meeting minutes containing employee reprimands, hiring information and medical and welfare information.
Simonds said the town administrative assistant gave her the confidential documents when Simonds had asked for all the electronically stored public minutes, which date back to 2009.
In her petition Simonds is asking the court to find the board in contempt and remove the selectmen from office.
Northcott said many residents are fed up and are making phone calls and sending emails to the town in support.
“I’ve had a number of emails and a phone calls offering support. They are tired of it,” Northcott said.
The last lawsuit cost the town $8,000 in legal fees. Northcott said he is not sure what this new court action would cost the town.
The case is to be heard in court Aug. 20.
Northcott and Gina Paight were selectmen at the time of the ruling. Lawrence Robinson did not seek reelection and was replaced by Beverly Harris, who won the seat in a race against Simonds.
Meghan Pierce may be reached at mpierce@newstote.com.
“We feel the board is not guilty or in contempt,” he said, “We’re pretty confident we’re not in contempt.”
On Friday resident Loretta Simonds filed a petition in the Cheshire County Superior Court asking the court to find the board in contempt of a court order not to violate the right-to-know law, four months after judge Phillip P. Mangones found the board guilty of numerous violations and enjoined the board against making further violations.
In Mangones’ January decision he wrote, “Petitioners are correct that the decisions to hire the consultant and to have the consultant gather initial information were made outside of a properly held meeting with notice and minutes. In other words, the decision creating the necessity for the board to vote to ‘withdraw from the project’ were made outside of the open meeting process required by RSA 91-A:2, I. The so-called four-town meetings constituted meetings under the provision of RSA chapter 91-A,” he wrote.
Mangones also called the board out for “obviating the spirit of the right-to-know law” by holding an unlawful electronic meeting in which a previous meeting’s minutes were edited.
At the time of the decision, Northcott said the board unknowingly violated the right-to-know law and had learned its lesson.
In her new petition, Simonds alleges the selectmen continue to hold improper non-public meetings and make decisions outside of a public meeting. She also says the board has been holding public meetings in which their speech is inaudible and or indiscernible.
“We carry on a normal conversation when we’re in a meeting. My opinion is she’s trying to make a mountain out of a molehill,” Northcott said. “It’s a business meeting. It’s not a town meeting.”
He added some board of selectmen duties, such as approving an elderly property tax exemption, do not require a discussion, because the town administrative assistant has already made sure the applicant meets the criteria.
Additionally, Simonds said, the board has violated the right-to-know law in a different way, she said, by releasing to her 35 copies of sealed non-public meeting minutes containing employee reprimands, hiring information and medical and welfare information.
Simonds said the town administrative assistant gave her the confidential documents when Simonds had asked for all the electronically stored public minutes, which date back to 2009.
In her petition Simonds is asking the court to find the board in contempt and remove the selectmen from office.
Northcott said many residents are fed up and are making phone calls and sending emails to the town in support.
“I’ve had a number of emails and a phone calls offering support. They are tired of it,” Northcott said.
The last lawsuit cost the town $8,000 in legal fees. Northcott said he is not sure what this new court action would cost the town.
The case is to be heard in court Aug. 20.
Northcott and Gina Paight were selectmen at the time of the ruling. Lawrence Robinson did not seek reelection and was replaced by Beverly Harris, who won the seat in a race against Simonds.
- - - - - - - -
Meghan Pierce may be reached at mpierce@newstote.com.