Gilford selectmen’s race includes two former rivals and a newcomer

GILFORD — Years before they opposed each other for a seat on the Gilford Board of Selectmen, Kevin Hayes and Denise Gonyer clashed over access to confidential emails in the Town Clerk-Tax Collector’s office.

If elected over Hayes and a third contestant for the seat — Angelo Farruggia — Gonyer would be serving with the town administrator and selectman against whom she sought a restraining order back in 2013.

Gonyer, however, says those conflicts were in the past.

“There have been no issues between myself and the BOS for several years,” she said in an email response to a query from The Laconia Daily Sun.

Gonyer also said that she was unaware that Hayes had already filed for the seat when she signed up as a candidate this year. She said it was “strictly coincidental that two former elected officials are vying for one open seat.”

Hayes agreed. “It is strictly a coincidence," he said. "I did not know she was running until 3 days after she signed up.”

Hayes also dismissed the idea that their former conflict would have any bearing on this year’s election.

As to the prospect of Gonyer working with Gus Benavides — in line to become chairman of the Gilford Board of Selectmen as he was at the time of the conflict— and Town Administrator Scott Dunn, Hayes would not speculate except to say, “My guess is that one of them has not forgotten.”

Restraining order

Court documents show that Gonyer was serving as the Gilford town clerk-tax collector on March 14, 2012, when she filed a complaint with the state Attorney General’s Office, alleging that Selectmen Gus Benavides, Kevin Hayes, and John O’Brien were holding illegal meetings.

Less than two weeks later, on March 26, 2012, according to the court filing, Town Administrator Scott Dunn reported that he had done a search of Gonyer’s emails on the town server. Gonyer viewed that as retaliation for her complaint about the meetings.

The town clerk-tax collector’s computer was on the same server as other town departments in 2005, making such a search possible, and the town maintained that monitoring employees’ use of emails was proper oversight.

According to Gonyer’s filing for a temporary restraining order against Dunn and the three selectmen on Feb. 15, 2013, Dunn exchanged emails with Brenda Therrien of the state Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss the confidentiality of the information Gonyer had on her computer. Town counsel also offered two opinions on the separation of the town clerk-tax collector position from other town offices.

Various state laws governing town clerks give them the authority to set their own hours and policies, with state oversight, keeping them mostly independent of selectmen’s oversight. However, selectmen are responsible for safeguarding town assets and properties, so they can set certain procedures for the town clerk to follow.

According to Gonyer’s 2013 court filing, selectmen told her they would continue to monitor town employees and “You should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever.”

She responded by notifying the Department of Safety, the Division of Motor Vehicles, and the Attorney General of the potential for breaches of confidentiality on her computer, and she filed for the temporary restraining order to prevent the selectmen and town administrator from accessing the files again.

She withdrew her request on March 22, 2013, saying she had received assurances from town officials that they would not try to access her computer in the future.

“The issues in the past were mostly a difference of opinion” on how the Town Clerk-Tax Collector’s Office should operate, Gonyer said, adding, “that was my job to do and to support the staffing requirements to service the public going forward.”

Employee use of technology

Town Administrator Scott Dunn declined to comment, but  provided a copy of the town’s current personnel policies,  which became effective on July 1, 2018. The policies have been amended several times between their initial drafting on Dec. 29, 2008, and June 27, 2018, so may not reflect the language that was in effect at the time of the dispute. However, it is clear that the town considers the information on “Town technology” to be the property of the town.

“All employees should be aware that the Town has the right, but not the obligation, to monitor, access, retrieve, restrict, publish or otherwise manage the use of Town technology at anytime [sic] without regard to employee privacy issues,” the policy states. “For this reason, employees cannot and should not expect privacy in their use of Town technology, and should instead expect that their e-mail messages, voice mail messages, computer and internet use, and other use of the Town’s technology is [sic] not confidential and may be monitored, reviewed and disclosed.”

Improper use of the technology could lead to an employee’s discharge, the policy goes on to say. Unacceptable use includes “unauthorized transmission of highly confidential or sensitive customer or proprietary material outside of the office” as well as “harassing, intimidating, abusive or offensive material,” incurring fees for the town, and having passwords which are not known to the town.

The policy also covers unauthorized access, “snooping,” sabotage, and hacking.

The section “Confidential Information” calls for any confidential information to be encrypted before transmission. “All Town data and information (including customer or taxpayer information) is considered confidential unless the Town has granted permission for a user to use it,” the policy states. Specific examples include personnel and payroll records of present and past employees, transactions with customers and/or taxpayers, and financial records of the town.

“When sending e-mail messages concerning confidential and/or proprietary information, employees are expected to exercise significant caution because of the ability of others to ‘crack’ the system,” the policy states.