Emails, overexpenditures plague Sylvia, Silber

LACONIA — With legal expenses in defense of a lawsuit against the Belknap County Convention now exceeding $50,000 — significantly more than the $20,000 representatives had authorized — the team representing the delegation is under increasing fire from both fellow members and constituents who question whether they exceeded their authority.

During the May 3 delegation meeting, representatives Michael Sylvia and Norman Silber deflected calls for the release of their email exchanges with attorneys at Cleveland, Waters & Bass, saying that to do so would end the attorney-client privilege and open the delegation to expensive lawsuits that ultimately would fail but still would be costly to the county.

Instead, they explained the validity of their questions to counsel and why a member of the Gunstock Area Commission would directly contact the convention’s own attorneys.

Publicly released invoices from the law firm indicated that the consultations included “review and revision of charges against G. Kiedaisch,” which some viewed as going beyond the scope of a legal defense. Silber pointed out the lawsuit had been filed to prevent the removal of three Gunstock commissioners, including Gary Kiedaisch, so a discussion about his removal was entirely appropriate in addressing the lawsuit.

As to another invoice entry, making reference to evaluating “emails from T. Quarles [Gunstock’s attorney], M. Sylvia, and P. Ness [a Gunstock Area Commissioner],” Rep. Ray Howard said the Gunstock commissioners’ attempt to remove Ness — the event precipitating the entire conflict — made him a “friendly witness” for the defense.

The Gunstock commissioners had alleged that Ness used his position as a commissioner to bully Gunstock employees, and that he had attempted to sell his snowsports instruction software program to Gunstock in violation of Gunstock’s conflict-of-interest law. When the county delegation, which has the role of appointing and recalling Gunstock commissioners, took up the complaints against Ness, members decided that there was insufficient evidence to remove him from his position.

Sylvia later circulated a memo suggesting that the other three commissioners who had accused Ness and were still serving had engaged in actions that “raise grave concerns and possible questions of criminal activity” and he wrote, “The question for the delegation to consider is if the actions by Commissioners Kiedaisch, [Brian] Gallagher, and [Rusty] McLear rises [sic] to the level of removal for cause….”

Those three commissioners cited Sylvia’s memo as a reason to file a lawsuit against the delegation, prevailing over the two commissioners objecting to the lawsuit. Sylvia maintains that filing the lawsuit and using Gunstock’s money to protect themselves is a clear conflict of interest.

The Gunstock Area Commission has refused to release copies of its legal bills for the lawsuit.

Members of the county delegation objected to paying the $30,000 in remaining legal bills without having access to the emails between the parties, especially those of Sylvia and Silber, to ensure that the expenses actually were appropriate to the lawsuit.

Rep. Timothy Lang said, “It’s our fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the funds are expended appropriately at this point. I don’t know if any single one of us could, with the exception of those who were subject of most of those emails, would know whether this was valid or invalid. We have no idea what was being talked about.”

Silber said that releasing the email exchanges outside the “control group” would subject them to the state’s right-to-know law. Sylvia explained that he, as chair of the delegation, and Silber, who has a legal background, served as the control group with the authority to engage with the law firm.

Rep. Travis O’Hara asked when the delegation had chosen them to serve as a control group. Howard said they gave Sylvia the authority to establish the control group when they elected him as chair of the delegation.

The delegation ultimately approved payment of the outstanding bill on a 8-7 vote.

Sylvia asked the delegation to join him in seeking reimbursement from the Gunstock Area Commission for the convention’s legal expenses in defending against the lawsuit. A motion to table the motion failed, followed by a 12-3 vote in favor of making that request.

Petition for removal

The delegation briefly addressed a citizens’ petition that sought to remove Sylvia and Silber from the county convention for exceeding appropriations. The petition cites RSA 24:16, which allows five resident taxpayers to petition the superior court for the removal of county officers on grounds that include exceeding appropriations.

That law applies to elected county officers, but not to state representatives, the members noted in dismissing the document.

The petition had been presented to the Belknap County Commission, rather than the superior court, and the commission had forwarded it to the delegation.

At the delegation’s previous meeting, O’Hara had attempted to remove Sylvia and Silber from leadership positions because of the over-expenditure, but members tabled his motion. He did not attempt to revive the measure at the May 3 meeting.

Support for Gunstock

Seventeen of the 18 Belknap representatives signed a pledge initiated by Rep. Harry Bean to never support the privatization of Gunstock. Bean explained that the delegation has been accused of having a goal of selling Gunstock to a private entity, and he wanted to end such speculation by entering their pledge into the record.

Some members noted that their opposition to privatization did not preclude support for leasing a portion of the property to a private firm if, for instance, Gunstock leadership wanted to allow someone to operate a hotel, as suggested in a draft master plan for the resort.

Sylvia commented, “If we could gift [Gunstock] to Gilford, I’d be happy to do so.”

The delegation also supported a $1.3 million paving project at Gunstock, although not without a lot of discussion.

The Belknap County Commission had offered federal American Rescue Plan money to Gunstock for the parking lot paving project, and the Gunstock Area Commission gave a unanimous vote of support for the transfer.

Representatives grilled county commissioners Peter Spanos and Glen Waring, as well as Gunstock Area Commissioner David Strang, about the project, asking whether it was the best use of the federal funds.

Strang said the parking lot was not at the top of his list of area improvements, but it was a project that could be done quickly and would allow for an expansion of spring and summer activities. The current gravel parking lot gets difficult to maneuver when the ground thaws, he said.

Asked what his top priority would be, Strang said it would be replacement of the Tiger lift, but that would be multi-year project taking tens of millions of dollars. He said the resort could fit that project into its improvement plans for the future.

The delegation questioned whether the county commissioners could better use the money for other needs, such as the nursing home or sheriff’s department. County Administrator Debra Shackett said they have $12 million in available ARPA funds, and $14 million in possible county projects, but some of the work may cost less than projected.

Spanos said the commission had determined that Gunstock’s parking lot would be the best use of that $1.3 million because it would allow the resort to increase its offerings, boosting its revenue, which would lead to a larger contribution to the county.

There was confusion about whether it would then be “Gunstock money” or “Belknap County money.” The motion as finally approved would have the county hold onto the money, doling it out to Gunstock as the resort received its bills for the driveway project.

Nursing Home

The delegation agreed to allocate $381,000 in ARPA funds for the replacement of leaking skylights at the Belknap County Nursing Home.

The county already had budgeted $100,000 for the work, but bids came in much higher than anticipated, largely due to requirements for air filtration and partitions that would be necessary while the work is in progress.

Howard questioned the $481,000 bid, suggesting that there are several glass companies in the area that should be able to do the work.

Shackett explained the strict requirements for the nursing home and said that the other bidder for the project withdrew when those conditions became clear.

The motion to allocate the money passed unanimously.