Hearing Wed. in police chief-selectmen wrangle

GILMANTON — A 20-month legal dispute between the town’s selectmen and police chief is set to head back to court Wednesday when the town will ask a Superior Court judge to cancel a restraining order which prohibits selectmen from implementing a series of directives the board wants to impose on the Police Department.

The case has pitted Police Chief Matt Currier against the town’s three selectmen over how much authority selectmen have in dictating the day-to-day operation and policies of the department.

In December 2017, selectmen issued 17 directives regarding Police Department staffing and personnel, including the hours of coverage, staffing levels, lengths of shifts, use of cruisers and when officers are permitted to travel beyond town limits. They also told Police Chief Matt Currier to turn over material from the officers’ personnel records, including background checks and polygraph test results.

Currier took the selectmen to court in February 2018, arguing the directives interfere with his ability to operate the department in a safe and efficient way and free of political influence.

The selectmen, for their part, say that under their authority to administer municipal services, it is entirely appropriate that they require the police chief to give an accounting of how the department is being managed, as well as to set basic policies regarding the use of department personnel.

The restraining order has been in effect since Judge James D. O’Neill III issued an injunction in July 2018 halting implementation of the directives, saying that to permit them to go into effect while the matter is still before the court could cause serious harm to the department and its officers.

The selectmen say in legal filings that the injunction is no longer needed because they have withdrawn 10 of the 17 directives.

Meanwhile, selectmen recently announced they have released what they call an organization improvement plan for the Police Department which, they say, takes into account input from Currier as well as recommendations contained in an evaluation of the department conducted by the consulting group Municipal Resources Inc.

The 71-page report makes recommendations in 12 areas, including police facilities, vehicles, communications, and community outreach.

Currier’s attorney, Edward Philpot, in arguing against having the restraining order lifted, said that the selectmen are asking the judge to, in effect, reconsider his July 2018 ruling and at the same time add new evidence to the case — namely the MRI report.

Currier agreed to participate in the MRI review in hopes that it might lead to a settlement of the dispute, but now the selectmen are “attempt(ing) to use the report against him.” By agreeing to take part in the MRI study, Currier did not give up any of his rights in the suit, his lawyer stated in court filings.

However, the town’s attorneys in their filings say that Currier tried to stop the MRI report from being generated in the first place.

“In other words, he took steps to obstruct the generation and ultimate disclosure of the very report he now complains of,” the filing reads.

In a prior hearing, Philpot argued that state law gives selectmen no authority to oversee the day-to-day operation of a police department. The selectmen’s authority “is limited to administrative functions,” he said.

In defending the chief's position, Philpot has pointed to a 1994 court ruling that once a community hires a police chief, there is a separation between the chief and a community’s executive and legislative authorities. While a police chief and selectmen should work in a cooperative manner, the judge found that chiefs should be able to operate their departments free from political interference.