Dozens of city leaders, volunteers take public records law training

LACONIA — In response to criticism about councilor communication about appointments this spring, city councilors and members of boards and commissions gathered at the Belknap Mill Monday night for training about public records laws from the New Hampshire Municipal Association.

Councilor Bob Soucy (Ward 2) emailed fellow councilors on the appointments committee March 31, asking for a phone discussion about changing a decision prior to a council meeting. The same day, Councilor Jon Hildreth (Ward 1) called one of the appointees, sharing information which should not have been given outside of a public meeting.

Residents and city leaders were frustrated, calling for the immediate resignation of both councilors. After the incident, Mayor Mike Bordes told the public councilors would attend required right-to-know training.

NH Municipal Association’s legal services counsel, Jonathan Cowal, told city leaders about Right-to-Know laws in New Hampshire Monday evening, discussing appropriate communication and conduct in public meetings and non-public sessions, as well as government records, record retention, and violations.

Dozens of city leaders and volunteers gathered for Cowal’s presentation, asking questions about proper conduct and communication.

Cowal opened his presentation by saying all 234 cities and towns in the Granite State are members of the NH Municipal Association, and have access to their services.

“The role of a municipal association is to help bridge that gap for local officials, many of which are volunteers, or elected officials that find themselves in local government and required to adhere by a whole bunch of different laws and rules,” Cowal said.

Cowal said one of the most common legal issues revolves around informal communication and technology.

“Let’s just say John Doe called Jane Doe and said, 'Hey, we have such-and-such topic coming up tonight, how do you feel about it?' That’s a complete violation, correct?” Bordes asked.

“Right. That would be something that would likely violate communications outside the meeting,” Cowal said.

Cowal said there’s no “91-A police,” referring to the state statute governing public records laws, and if the communication was by phone, someone probably wouldn’t get caught the first, second, or even third time.

“Maybe you don’t even know you’re doing anything wrong, so you don’t realize there’s anything to get caught for. But one day, you could then show up at a public meeting, and vote on a particular topic. And it becomes clear that there was discussion had outside of the public meeting that made it influence your decision that the public wasn’t aware of, and somebody files a complaint,” Cowal said. “That’s when you get into the testimony, a court case, and taking the witness stand.”

Cowal also spent a great deal of time talking about where issues can arise through email. He spoke about the “dangers of reply all,” producing back-and-forth conversations and questions leaders should avoid outside public meetings. In these tricky scenarios, Cowal advised leaders to use the “hub and spoke” method.

“So you have an administrative person, or maybe the chair of the board, to act as the hub, and they send out emails to all the remaining members of the public body using the bcc function,” Cowal said. “So, if somebody’s hopping on the bcc function, if anybody hits reply all, it only goes back to the one original sender.”

Quorums were also a large topic of discussion Monday night, many city leaders having specific questions regarding what happens in meetings when some members are missing, or leave early.

Cowal said the cleanest, safest option is always to stop the meeting if you do not have the minimum number of members present.

“Once you no longer have a quorum, you can't communicate contemporaneously about official business,” Cowal said.

Throughout the training, Cowal talked to city leaders about citizens’ right to know the final outcomes of a vote, as well as the right to know why.

“When the selectboard implements a new ordinance, or when the planning board updates its site plan regulations, the public has a right to know why they chose to make those decisions,” Cowal said. “They have the right to know what information went into making those decisions, what discussions happened, and that's why the public meeting requirements are so strict when it comes to communications outside of public meetings.”