Gunstock-delegation dispute now in judge’s hands

LACONIA — Intervention by the court is necessary in order to stop the Belknap County Delegation from summarily removing three Gunstock Area commissioners.

Court action is unwarranted because there are no plans to remove any commissioners and because judicial interference in this matter would be inappropriate.

These competing arguments were presented to a judge at a virtual hearing in Belknap Superior Court Thursday in a case brought by the Gunstock Area Commission which wants the delegation barred from removing Gunstock Commissioners Brian Gallagher, Gary Kiedaisch, and Rusty McLear without showing just cause for their removal or giving the three commissioners an opportunity to defend themselves in any proceeding.

Judge James D. O’Neill took the matter under advisement after a one-hour hearing. The judge asked no questions during the proceeding and gave no indication when he would issue a ruling.

“The court needs to exercise its jurisdiction before this hearing takes place,” the commission’s attorney Thomas Quarles Jr. told the judge, arguing that delegation chair, state Rep. Mike Sylvia, signaled at a meeting last month that “this matter isn’t dead.”

But Cooley Arroyo, an attorney for the delegation, said the Gunstock Commission was seeking an extraordinary and unjustified legal remedy.

“They are asking the court to pre-judge the grounds for the removal of Gunstock Area Commissioner members,” she said.

Quarles said while a meeting of the delegation in November that was initially scheduled to consider the removal of Gallagher, Kiedaisch, and McLear had been canceled and that none other is scheduled, there is good reason to believe that Sylvia, and fellow delegation member, state Rep. Norm Silber, will disregard due process and full deliberation. He pointed to the delegation’s meeting on Oct. 25 to consider the Gunstock Commission’s request to remove Commissioner Peter Ness at which no testimony was allowed.

“We’re a political body and we don’t have to give due process to anyone,” Quarles said of Sylvia’s and Silber’s mindset.

Arroyo argued that if the three commissioners should be removed in the future they would still be able to challenge their removal later on in court, but that it would be inappropriate for the court to get involved at this stage.

“There is no reason to infuse the court in this matter now,” she said.

Arroyo said that if the court granted the injunction being requested by the Gunstock Commission the delegation would be unable to fulfill its responsibilities of overseeing the operation of the commission.

She said if the court were to stop the delegation from handling the matter as it sees fit it would set a precedent that could lead to appointed officials filing court actions because they fear “what might happen in the future.”

Arroyo told the judge that if there were to be a future delegation meeting to consider removing the three commissioners there would be adequate advance notice, the delegation would take testimony “it considers appropriate” and the delegation would deliberate before taking a vote.

“Just because they don’t like the due process that is being offered, doesn’t make it insufficient,” she said.

Quarles repeated the contention made in the commission’s initial legal action that the effort to remove Gallagher, Kiedaisch, and McLear is in reprisal for their vote of no confidence and request that the delegation remove Ness for alleged conflict of interest and behavior toward some Gunstock employees, charges which Ness has denied.