As Gunstock audit finally arrives, committee's lack of Right to Know compliance raises questions about public access, transparency

GILFORD — As the Gunstock Mountain Resort audit findings, after some delay, become public — according to the posted agenda of the Gunstock Area Committee’s Wednesday meeting — questions remain about the now-disbanded Audit Committee and its relationship with public access.

The Audit Subcommittee of the Gunstock Area Commission was founded on transparency. However, it failed to comply with public notice and access laws around meetings, as evidenced by documents The Daily Sun received as part of Right to Know requests.

The committee did not honor New Hampshire's Right to Know law, or the commission’s bylaws, by neglecting to publicly announce and hold its meetings and publish minutes.

Operating behind closed doors

The committee's mission was to bring greater transparency and oversight to Gunstock's audit process. Critics of Gunstock’s management team, accusing the staff of financial malfeasance, pointed to findings of the committee and the results of the audit — a standard municipal audit that Gunstock undergoes annually — that would be revelatory.

“Don’t walk out, wait for the audit,” read posts circulating in conservative and Libertarian social media circles during the management team’s hiatus as public support for staff grew.

The GAC founded the Audit Committee in May “as a means of extending an olive branch" to the Belknap County Delegation, as some representatives, including one appointed to the committee, believe that because Gunstock Mountain Resort is owned by the county it therefore should have more accountability and transparency in its financial operations. The committee was to consist of one member of the commission, one member of the county delegation and one member of the public.

The subcommittee was disbanded at the commission's Aug. 15 meeting. The Audit Committee’s chair, former Commissioner Dr. David Strang, and its founder, former GAC Chair Peter Ness, were no longer on the commission, and new and remaining commissioners reasoned it would be better for the business of audit oversight to be undertaken by the full body.

Current Chair Doug Lambert said the commission as a whole had been “in the dark” on the committee’s business and expressed concern that it had violated commission bylaws. All the commissioners were not aware of the committee’s activities, how many times it had met, or of the existence of any minutes.

In response to a Right to Know request for the committee’s meeting announcements, agendas and minutes, The Daily Sun received forwarded emails from committee members regarding meeting planning and business, minutes from its two meetings, and a list of checks it requested the auditor examine.

These documents reveal that the committee held two secret meetings and that its minutes may not have existed until they were subject to the Right to Know request.

The audit subcommittee met twice, on June 25 without the principal auditor present and on June 28 with. Neither meeting was noticed in any way.

The committee’s intention was to hold non-public sessions, according to the documents provided. Per New Hampshire RSA 91-A, known as the Right to Know law, a body must vote to enter a non-public session while in a properly noticed public meeting. This is notable because, on occasion, meetings that are originally intended to be conducted privately end up remaining in public session.

Also per the RSA, all meetings must be open to the public and noticed 24 hours in advance. GAC bylaws describe a required process for the commission and its committees to notice their meetings.

Strang was aware that the meetings had to be noticed but did not do so. 

In a June 24 email to the auditor regarding the June 28 meeting, with Ness included, Strang wrote, “it appears we have to public notice this meeting, even though it will be a non-public meeting.”

When asked about notices via email, committee Chair Strang responded that, “I believe we discussed having to notice them on the Gunstock website ... but I don't know if [the resort] did that.”

Gunstock Director of Human Resources Becky LaPense said via email that there is no record of the commission providing notice of any Audit Committee meetings for publication.

RSA 91-A, echoed by the GAC bylaws, states that minutes must be created and made available to the public within five business days of the meeting. In response to the Right to Know request, Strang provided draft minutes for the committee’s two meetings. 

Strang, in email communication, said the minutes were available within five days of the meetings, though not on Gunstock’s website because that is not the past practice of the GAC. 

The Daily Sun was “the first to request these minutes some months after their production,” Strang wrote. Strang said he did “not recall the actual day these minutes were produced,” but said they were compiled electronically.

According to their file properties, the minutes were created by Strang on Aug. 26. The meetings took place in late June. Strang confirmed his receipt of the Right to Know request on Aug. 22.

The minutes were never publicly posted, violating state law and commission bylaws. LaPense said the mountain has no record of the Audit Committee’s minutes.

Strang did not respond to requests to comment for this story. 

Following precedent

The Audit Committee is not the first GAC subcommittee with this conduct: Strang emphasized in email communication that it has not been the past practice of GAC committees to announce their meetings or produce minutes, which the mountain confirmed.

But while the lack of transparency by the Audit Committee may not be unprecedented, the committee itself is.

Before and during the time the turmoil at Gunstock drew national attention, the committee became a bearer for thus far unfounded accusations of corruption by Gunstock’s management. Impassioned divisions over the mountain became a defining and decisive issue in local and state politics this year. For many members of the community, the committee was to reveal the proof grounding those allegations. 

Unlike most past committees, it appears that the committee contradicted GAC bylaws, which state that “the Chair may appoint members of the commission” to committees.

There were three non-commission members who served on the audit committee: two members of the county delegation, Reps. Barbara Comtois (R-Center Barnstead) and Dawn Johnson (R-Laconia), and a member of the public, former Rep. John Plumer. 

Knowing the law

The committee’s non-compliance reflects a broader trend of cavalier attention to public access during Gunstock’s turmoil.

In multiple cases, information that should have been available to the public was not available, and sensitive information not officially authorized to be public was released:

• A copy of a check from General Manager Tom Day to the campaign of the governor from 2020 was released to the public — in some instances with the account information unredacted — on July 27. The check was among those on the Audit Committee’s list for further review by the auditor.

• The contents of a July 29 non-public session, whose minutes were sealed by the GAC per a 91-A exemption on July 31, were disclosed by Ness in a memo to the Audit Committee members, most of whom did not attend that meeting, just after he resigned.

• Reps. Mike Sylvia (R-Belmont) and Norm Silber (R-Gilford) conjured the notion of a “control group” on the delegation for the express purpose of shielding their communications with legal counsel about a GAC lawsuit from public access through 91-A.

New Hampshire's Right to Know law is intricate and often unknowingly and unintentionally violated at the local level. But surrounding Gunstock, an area that — since long before the management walk out in July — was a deeply personal and passionate issue in the local community, such non-compliance and avoidance could be seen as irresponsible.

New Hampshire RSA 91-A, the citizens’ Right to Know law, has two main pillars outlining the public access requirements for government meetings and records. Any member of the public can submit a request to access records to the appropriate custodian or custodians of those records, with a response required within five business days. The law lists exceptions to its requirements, such as what kinds of documents are not public record, or reasons a body may enter a non-public session.

To hold government officials accountable to the law, citizens can take legal action. To be punished for 91-A violations, a court must find that public officials or bodies “knew or should have known” that their conduct broke the law.

The public’s right to government transparency is enshrined in Article 8 of the state constitution. A memo by the state attorney general’s office urges “all public officials learn their responsibilities under the Right-to-Know law” because “the public’s right to know what its government is doing is a fundamental part of New Hampshire’s democracy.”