Published DateTo the editor,
Missing from the accounts of the Monday, March 4 meeting of the Belknap Convention were are discussion of Chapter 24; Chapter 29-A:2 and 29-A:7; Department of Revenue MS forms; Statute 7:34. All of this may make one's eyes glaze over but the background behind the comments of various delegates cannot be understood except in context.
If the county convention, an autonomous unit of government, cannot charter its own legal course under Chapters 24 and 29, then its ability to exercise budgetary authority is compromised and the commissioners could continue their end run around the convention's attempt to do what it is by law chartered with doing: set a reasonable county budget.
The missing account that is really puzzling, though, was the fact that the commissioners left 34 County Drive rather then to accede to the request of the county attorney to file an appearance on behalf of the convention in the Tardif lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the open meeting law, that is, RSA 91-A. This was costly, unprofessional and spiteful conduct on the part of the commissioners. I wonder why it was not reported; may perhaps it have something to do with the perspective of the reporter. Since the notice of an appearance was due in Belknap Superior Court by today (March 5), this was negligent conduct.
Having accused the convention earlier of arrogance and ignorance, it does appear that the commissioners project onto others the very qualities of which they are guilty.
State Rep. - Belknap 5