Council sends Human Relations Committee back to subcommittee, again

LACONIA — Councilors voted not to pass an amendment to schedule a public hearing about eliminating the Human Relations Committee.

The Human Relations Committee was included in an adopted ordinance that defined official ccouncil committees in December. On Monday night, councilors considered scheduling a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would have effectively stricken the group, electing instead to direct their subcommittee on government operations to draft suggestions for a revision, to present to council at a later date.

The Human Relations Committee emerged as something of a political lightning rod at City Hall at the end of 2025, just weeks before newly-elected Mayor Mike Bordes and a new city council — which would include Ward 1 Councilor Jon Hildreth and Ward 6 Councilor Mike Conant as newcomers to the city’s legislative body — took office themselves.

The discussion over the group and its activities was intense, and stretched on for months. Public hearings were held regarding the purpose and organizational structure. Generally, the same people spoke, either for or against, the existence of that group each time.  

On Monday, a draft ordinance amendment motion — borne out of a Jan. 28 subcommittee meeting with approval from Conant and Ward 5 Councilor Steven Bogert — was on the floor for discussion, with Ward 3 Councilor Eric Hoffman in dissent.

“Is it a discussion to repeal the Human Relations Committee again?” Bordes asked Monday night.

“The vote that happened at the government operations and ordinances committee was to repeal, it’s not a reconsideration, because it’s past its timeframe,” City Manager Kirk Beattie said. “This would be similar to if somebody were to bring up any ordinance change, it would start here to see if you want to move the process forward, and that’s where this would stand.”

There was no input from the community, either way, during a period open to public comment during the Monday meeting. But there was plenty of input from councilors, who discussed the question for about 45 minutes.

“This is for a public hearing, is the motion, so the public will be discussing a potential repeal of the ordinance that was passed by the previous city council,” Bordes told Ward 2 Councilor Bob Soucy when asked if the motion would essentially kill the committee.

Bordes said it appeared to him the subcommittee recommended to remove the committee, and suggested holding another public hearing.

“I’d like to see, we make a change, that whatever the future [committee] is that we have that committee, not made up of 13 people — let’s say made up of five or seven — and we put that together. We select the candidates through the appointments committee process, and bring it to the city council,” Soucy said. “So that committee still exists under the auspices and oversight of the city council, that’s where I’m going.”

Bogert said he agreed with Soucy, and thought having the subcommittee work out the kinks would be a good idea.

“Due to the way that the ordinance is written, to make a lot of these changes, we would have to redo the whole ordinance,” Bogert said. “In order to make the way the ordinance is written, we would have to go through all of this. By taking it away and then saying, ‘OK, you want to have a Human Relations Committee,’ and blank-slate, and allow the government ordinance committee to finish a lot of the work.”

Hoffman said he’s open to amending the existing ordinance, particularly regarding the number of committee members and how they’re appointed, but he “didn’t vote for it in committee,” and he’s “not going to vote for it now.”

“To advance removing the Human Relations Committee completely,” he said.

“I think I’d be OK amending the ordinance as passed.”

Conant said he wants the public involved in the conversation.

“In reference to what Councilor Conant just said, didn’t we have a public hearing? I mean, how many times can you have a public hearing? I’m not against a public hearing,” Ward 4 Councilor Mark Haynes said. “I can tell you one thing right now I can envision: you’re going to have the same cast of characters, you’re going to have the same conversation and the whole works, it’s just beating a dead horse. If there was some new information to come forward, I’m for that.” 

Hildreth said he doesn’t support moving the question forward to a public hearing. 

“If the government operations and ordinances subcommittee wants to come to us with suggestions for changes, I would be open to a public hearing on that,” Hildreth said. “But not where the only purpose of this vote would be to eliminate it. I would also add that I attended many of the council meetings prior to being elected, and this was discussed ad nauseam.”

A motion to indefinitely postpone the vote on the item failed, as did a motion to table the item. Later, the item itself failed 4-2, with Bogert and Conant in favor, and Haynes, Hildreth, Hoffman and Soucy against.

Bogert then made a motion to send the ordinance back to the subcommittee, and Hoffman seconded it. That motion passed with Bogert, Hildreth, Hoffman and Soucy in favor, and Conant and Haynes opposed.

“We are spending so much time, energy and resources on a small committee that really has no say on Laconia,” Bordes said. 

“Exactly,” said Haynes.