Here we go again....making decisions? Right To Know?
Once more, an issue comes up....and gets a "what do we do" treatment. From the Citizen:
The Gilford Board of Selectmen is skirting a fine line around New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law as it considers holding nonpublic sessions to determine whether or not to dismiss members on the facility planning committee.
Over the last 13 months, the FPC has been working toward an addition to the police station that will address the space needs of the department. Just before coming forward with a plan, the selectmen put the brakes on the project and left the committee waiting in the wings.
All ahead - full stop! Ramp it up, get it going, go to work, slam into the wall!
Lacking any direction or mission moving forward, the steering rests in the hands of the selectmen. Taking a critical look at the committee, selectmen have suggested several adjustments, including a possible reduction in membership.
The board agreed that a direction would have to wait until after the March 11 voting when citizens will decide whether to appropriate $150,000 toward the continuation of the project. However, Selectman Connie Grant wanted to get the membership question resolved.
First shoe drops:
"In going forward, we should talk about members in nonpublic session," said Grant.
"I would not want to say some of the things about the people in public. That shouldn't be public," added Chair Alice Boucher.
Both explained that much of the decision on whether to continue having a specific committee member serve would deal with their personalities and also their conduct on the committee.
After the board suspended the committee's activities just before they were to bring a proposal before the voters, many members were displeased, though few publicly expressed their feelings.
There does seem to have been progress on the plans, but then it seemed to have hit the wall all of a sudden. And yes, I know that there has been some "complaining" about how the go-no-go decision was made about putting the Police Station on this year's Warrant.
But to start hocking people overboard? And at this point, with this exchange (and since one of my pet peeves is that the Selectmen continue to have their meetings when employees can be there but most taxpayers cannot), I can only rely on the reporting.
From my view...
Look, it is an official sub-committee of the Selectmen and they can do with it as they wish. But all of the rest of us certainly have the right to say what we wish and want (and for those few, the will).
Sorry, but since this has come to light, it seems that the Selectmen are now going to head for cover.....and there is a problem for them coming right up.
The assertion of Boucher and Grant was that, because what was likely to come up during discussion could adversely affect the reputation of individuals discussed, the Right-to-Know law allowed for the conversation to take place out of the public eye.
The Right To Know Law, RSA 91-A: 3 II Exception C allows for the exclusion of "matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputations of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself."
And being a duly constituted sub-committee of the Selectmen, I believe that the FPC committee members ARE a member of that board (and no, I am not a lawyer - just IMHO here). This says "any person, OTHER than a member...." - and they ARE members, right? The Citizen article (most likely backed up by counsel) agrees:
The Board of Selectmen is the governing body of the town. All committees formed by the board are subcommittees of the board and thus are a part of the governing body, including the facility planning committee.
Heh! And the Selectmen are probably on the hook, given their past history:
Selectman Gus Benavides pointed that out, noting that, in appointing members to the energy committee, the board took the matter up publicly and even expressed personality reasons why some applicants were not appointed.
So why do they feel they should do the FPC in private session when they treated the Energy Committee differently? Well, looking at the members of the FPC might give a clue, and to the remarks made when the Selectmen drove the process to a screeching halt?
Others think that the ability to go into non-public session may be bogus in this matter as well:
The Citizen and other local media outlets challenged the board's right to enter into nonpublic session for purposes of discussing the membership of the FPC.
And it was repeated in the Steamer:
In response to a question from the media, the selectmen said they wanted to discuss the membership of the committee in non-public and referenced RSA 91-A: 3 II (a). The RSA states that the dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee, the hiring of a public employee or other matters which could adversely affect the reputation of the public employee, can be done in non-public session.
Well, here's the RSA:
Only the following matters shall be considered or acted upon in nonpublic session:
(a) The dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted.
Well, it seems that no matter which RSA was quoted (be it the Steamer or the Citizen), the Selectmen are not entitled to it, as either the FPC committee members ARE part of the governing body; they are certainly not public employees
"This could affect reputations," said Selectmen Alice Boucher. "We are likely to be discussing things more in-depth than during the appointments. Those were based around experience. This would be on how the committee works together."
And once again, without trying to be Captain Obvious, you collectively have not done so. By acting in such a manner that you made the top headline in the Steamer, you have now placed all of the FPC members into a suspect status.
So, can it be made any worse?
There is an old saying "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Another is "Stand up for your convictions". And of course "Just do it".
