Gilmanton police chief gets restraining order against selectmen

Judge: Selectmen’s request for information about police work schedules and personal information could cause harm

By MICHAEL MORTENSEN, LACONIA DAILY SUN

LACONIA — A judge has temporarily blocked a move by the Gilmanton Board of Selectmen ordering the town's police chief to give the board information about the department's work schedule and other personal information about the officers.

Superior Court Judge Amy Ignatius approved the temporary restraining order sought by Police Chief Matt Currier. The judge issued the order on Monday and it is effective for 10 days. In issuing the decision, Ignatius said that not to have done so might cause "irreparable harm" to the chief or the department.

A hearing on the issue has been scheduled for this coming Wednesday in Belknap County Superior Court.

Last December, the selectmen voted to enact a series of police department policies regarding staffing and personnel, including the hours of coverage, staffing levels, lengths of shifts, use of cruisers, and when officers are permitted to travel beyond town limits.

In his complaint filed in Belknap County Superior Court, Currier states that the directives exceed the selectmen's authority and violate state law which says police chiefs have authority to direct and control all employees in their department in their normal course of duty and "shall be responsible for the efficient and economical use of all department equipment." The statute further states that police chiefs can only be removed for cause after being given written notice.

Currier maintains that, through the directives that took effect Jan. 1, the selectmen are "attempting to punish [him] if he does not implement those directives, even if those directives directly contradict the Police Chief's statutory authority."

In seeking comment on the matter from Head Selectman Stephen McWhinnie, Assistant Town Administrator Heather Carpenter referred comment to the town's attorney, Mark Broth.

Broth said the selectmen are not interested in interfering in the day-to-day operations of the Police Department but feel that the moves selectmen are making are appropriate, given the selectmen's responsibilities as the town's employer and stewards of the town.

In a letter Broth sent to the chief's lawyer, Ed Philpot, he stated that the selectmen want information about officers' schedules so they "have a clear understanding of how manpower is being deployed" and the number of hours they work each week. The selectmen's attorney said that, rather than have the work schedule identify the officers by name, they could be identified as "Employee A," "Employee B," and so on.

Broth further stated that the chief has no legal basis to deny selectmen the information they are seeking, including background investigation files on each officer on the force.

"I know of no other employer who doesn't have access to [everything in an] employee's personnel file," Broth said.

In defending the chief's position, Currier's attorney points to a 1994 court ruling that Belmont selectmen had overstepped their authority regarding the hiring of a lieutenant for the department.

In that decision, the judge wrote that, once a community hires a police chief, there is a separation between the chief and the city or town's executive and legislative authorities. While a police chief and selectmen should work in a cooperative manner, the judge found that chiefs should be able to operate their departments free from political interference.

Philpot characterized the matter as a "sincere difference of opinion" about the chief's prerogatives on the operation and oversight of his department. He added that there had been substantial discussions involving the selectmen, the chief, and attorneys for both sides, over the last couple of weeks, but those talks failed to produce an agreement.

"The chief doesn't want to disobey the selectmen," Philpot said, "but at the same time he doesn't want to violate the law."