Judge: Alton board didn't meet illegally

ALTON — Town government critic Jeffrey Clay has asked for reconsideration of a judge’s ruling that the Alton Board of Selectmen’s practice of holding frequent workshops does not violate the state’s Right-to-Know Law.

Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III ruled that "workshop" is just another word for "meeting," and that in the three sessions the judge reviewed, selectmen complied with the requirement to give advance public notice of the sessions.

O’Neill also rejected Clay’s allegation that selectmen have repeatedly held nonpublic sessions without taking a roll-call vote, and held those meetings for illegal reasons.

“Selectmen entered into non-public sessions lawfully for each of the meetings (Clay) purports the selectmen unlawfully entered into a non-public session,” O’Neill wrote in his 15-page ruling.

“I’m disappointed in the judge’s decision, and that’s why I’m asking him to reconsider it,” Clay said Tuesday.

The town, for its part, feels the ruling upholds the way selectmen have been conducting business.

“We are very pleased with the ruling," Town Administrator Elizabeth Dionne said. "We feel we have been vindicated.”

O’Neill deferred ruling on two parts of Clay’s suit: The  allegation that once selectmen went into nonpublic session they discussed matters that were off limits, and the issues regarding meetings of the Alton Board of Water Commissioners.

O’Neill gave the town until March 22 to turn over the full minutes of the selectmen’s nonpublic sessions, as well as the minutes of the Water Commission meetings, so he can rule on those two issues.

Dionne said the town is in the process of turning that material over to the judge.

Clay was unhappy that O’Neill limited his review to just the specific selectmen’s workshops that he cited in his brief, rather than consider what Clay has argued is the selectmen’s history of conducting business in a way as to avoid or discourage public scrutiny.

He also said that since he is acting as his own attorney he should not have to provide all the documents that a lawyer representing a client would be required to do.

The town on Tuesday filed an objection to Clay’s motion for reconsideration.

“The fact that the workshop agendas and procedures differed from the agendas and procedures of the regular monthly meetings is not a violation of any provision of RSA 91-A (the Right-to-Know Law) nor were they a violation of any other rule of law,” the town’s motion reads.

If O’Neill reaffirms his ruling, Clay said that he would appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

Dionne said selectmen hope the matter can be put to rest.

“This suit resulted in thousands of tax dollars being spent for legal counsel representation, staff time, document costs and staff being required to sit in court while on town time in case needed for testimony,” she said. (Town) Attorney (James) Sessler has asked for reimbursement of attorney’s fees. We hope the finding in our favor will end the frivolous lawsuits and complaints that continue by Mr. Clay.”