A+ A A-

Selectmen's proper course was to appeal ruling to Superior Court

To The Daily Sun,
This letter is in response to Moultonborough Board of Selectman member Tolman's recent letter that defended the actions of his board in attempting to remove two Planning Board members at a hearing held on September 9th.
While one can argue the issue of whether the votes of the two Planning Board members were correct or even rational, the proper arbiter to determine the validity of those votes was the Superior Court. The problem with Mr. Tolman's arguments is that he failed to see that the option he and the Selectboard members used to remedy what they perceived to be errors by the Planning Board, "impeachment" of the two Planning Board
members, was flawed as the statute they relied upon required a showing of malfeasance.

When the Town Administrator presented his "indictment" of the Planning Board members, based upon his perception of what should have been done, he provided the Selectboard with two options, which probably were not intended to be mutually exclusive. The first was appeal the decision to Superior Court; the second was to subject the offending Planning Board members to a removal hearing. For whatever reasons, in
the infamous unrecorded "non-meeting," the selectmen elected the second option to attempt to remove the allegedly offending Planning Board members, even though that option would not remedy the alleged problem described by the town administrator.
Eric Taussig

Moultonborough

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN