Home » News » Politics
Court: Marlborough Selectmen violated right-to-know law
MARLBOROUGH — A selectman says the board never intentionally violated the right-to-know law, even though Cheshire County Superior Court Judge Phillip P. Mangones cited nine violations in a recent decision.
John Northcott said board members are taking measures to avoid such violations in the future.
“There’s no question, yeah, we’ve been too casual and that sort of thing,” Northcott said.
Mangones pointed to improperly posted meetings that included a discussion and decision to study regional resources, unlawful meetings via email and the nondisclosure of minutes or the release of only partial minutes.
“Nothing was done to be evasive or undercover,” Northcott said. “Our intentions were never to deceive, but our actions were wrong and (the judge) cited those each as a violation.”
In the petition filed Nov. 23, 2011, residents Loretta Simonds and Robert Cameron alleged board members Northcott, Lawrence Robinson and Gina Paight communicated outside of meetings, held meetings without public notice, refused the petitioners access to public records and altered public records.
Along with communicating through email the petitioners claimed the Select Board attended a Jan. 5 and a Jan. 20, multi-town meeting without notification or documentation.
“These meetings were attended by the town selectmen of Dublin, Harrisville, Marlborough and Nelson to consider the possible consolidation of departments of the four towns,” the petition said. “These were public meetings as defined in RSA 91-A:2 I. The Marlborough board did not give public notice of these meetings as is required in RSA 91-A:2 II, nor were minutes taken as required by RSA 91-A:4. Confirmed knowledge of these meeting was gained through public information published by other towns.”
According to Nelson town meeting minutes, the four towns agreed to raise a warrant article of $6,000 each to fund an exploratory study of the consolidation of town department resources, the petition says.
Last week, Mangones released his decision in which he found that Cameron and Simonds assertions were correct.
“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.
Cameron and Simonds said they couldn’t be happier about their victory in court, but said selectmen should be taking the injunctions more seriously.
“We’re happy, but they seem to misconstrue what happened here,” Cameron said.
“The leopards don’t change their spots,” Simonds said. “Maybe for a short while we’ll see some changes, and then they’ll go right back to it.”
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.
“A quorum of the Board edited the minutes of the September 26, 2011 meeting by email, making substantive corrections. After considerable editing by email, the Board unanimously voted to approve the September 26, 2011 meeting at the October 3, 2011 meeting.”
In his decision Mangones orders the board to produce any recordings which were allegedly used by the board to make the edits.
“The edits, which a quorum of the Board had made to the September 26, 2011 meeting minutes, were based on a tape recording ... The Board must produce that recording and any materials which permitted the Board to reconstruct what had occurred at the meeting, thus enabling it to correct the minutes,” Mangones wrote.
Northcott said the board had regularly edited meeting minutes via email, without knowing it was a violation of the right-to-know law.
“It has always been standard when we have a meeting,” Northcott said.
Board members were also unaware they had violated the right-to-know law when they attended the four-town meetings in Harrisville, he said. “We never considered that as having a meeting.”
Northcott said the lawsuit only came about because Cameron and Simonds got wind that the selectmen were trying to fire the town’s police chief, Christopher J. Lyons.
The board had issues with how Lyons was running the police department, Northcott said, and that was why they had initially participated in the study of sharing town resources with Dublin, Harrisville and Nelson.
At the same time, Cameron and Simonds began attending meetings and scrutinizing how the board conducted business, he said. The two also circulated a petition voicing resident support of Lyons.
Simonds has filed to run for a selectman’s seat.
Simonds said she and Cameron will continue to attend each meeting and videotape it, as they have since last summer.
“We’ll continue to keep an eye on them as long as they are in office and there is a breath in our bodies; we will be keeping an eye on them,” Simonds said.
John Northcott said board members are taking measures to avoid such violations in the future.
“There’s no question, yeah, we’ve been too casual and that sort of thing,” Northcott said.
Mangones pointed to improperly posted meetings that included a discussion and decision to study regional resources, unlawful meetings via email and the nondisclosure of minutes or the release of only partial minutes.
“Nothing was done to be evasive or undercover,” Northcott said. “Our intentions were never to deceive, but our actions were wrong and (the judge) cited those each as a violation.”
Pair file petition
In the petition filed Nov. 23, 2011, residents Loretta Simonds and Robert Cameron alleged board members Northcott, Lawrence Robinson and Gina Paight communicated outside of meetings, held meetings without public notice, refused the petitioners access to public records and altered public records.
Along with communicating through email the petitioners claimed the Select Board attended a Jan. 5 and a Jan. 20, multi-town meeting without notification or documentation.
“These meetings were attended by the town selectmen of Dublin, Harrisville, Marlborough and Nelson to consider the possible consolidation of departments of the four towns,” the petition said. “These were public meetings as defined in RSA 91-A:2 I. The Marlborough board did not give public notice of these meetings as is required in RSA 91-A:2 II, nor were minutes taken as required by RSA 91-A:4. Confirmed knowledge of these meeting was gained through public information published by other towns.”
According to Nelson town meeting minutes, the four towns agreed to raise a warrant article of $6,000 each to fund an exploratory study of the consolidation of town department resources, the petition says.
Last week, Mangones released his decision in which he found that Cameron and Simonds assertions were correct.
“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.
Cameron and Simonds said they couldn’t be happier about their victory in court, but said selectmen should be taking the injunctions more seriously.
“We’re happy, but they seem to misconstrue what happened here,” Cameron said.
“The leopards don’t change their spots,” Simonds said. “Maybe for a short while we’ll see some changes, and then they’ll go right back to it.”
Edited minutes
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.
“A quorum of the Board edited the minutes of the September 26, 2011 meeting by email, making substantive corrections. After considerable editing by email, the Board unanimously voted to approve the September 26, 2011 meeting at the October 3, 2011 meeting.”
In his decision Mangones orders the board to produce any recordings which were allegedly used by the board to make the edits.
“The edits, which a quorum of the Board had made to the September 26, 2011 meeting minutes, were based on a tape recording ... The Board must produce that recording and any materials which permitted the Board to reconstruct what had occurred at the meeting, thus enabling it to correct the minutes,” Mangones wrote.
Northcott said the board had regularly edited meeting minutes via email, without knowing it was a violation of the right-to-know law.
“It has always been standard when we have a meeting,” Northcott said.
Board members were also unaware they had violated the right-to-know law when they attended the four-town meetings in Harrisville, he said. “We never considered that as having a meeting.”
Northcott said the lawsuit only came about because Cameron and Simonds got wind that the selectmen were trying to fire the town’s police chief, Christopher J. Lyons.
The board had issues with how Lyons was running the police department, Northcott said, and that was why they had initially participated in the study of sharing town resources with Dublin, Harrisville and Nelson.
At the same time, Cameron and Simonds began attending meetings and scrutinizing how the board conducted business, he said. The two also circulated a petition voicing resident support of Lyons.
Simonds has filed to run for a selectman’s seat.
Simonds said she and Cameron will continue to attend each meeting and videotape it, as they have since last summer.
“We’ll continue to keep an eye on them as long as they are in office and there is a breath in our bodies; we will be keeping an eye on them,” Simonds said.