Judge hears both sides as Alton selectmen deny holding illegal meetings

LACONIA — Alton town government critic Jeffrey Clay argued his case before a Superior Court judge Tuesday, claiming that selectmen have been holding illegal meetings, while the town’s attorney told the judge that selectmen have been following legal procedures.

Clay told Judge James D. O’Neill III that the selectmen’s practice of holding workshop meetings is an attempt to disinvolve the public in what selectmen are doing.

“The idea of a workshop conveys to the public that no public business will be taking place. But in fact,” he continued, “they are doing the regular business of the town. The selectmen are doing this to circumvent the requirements of [the Right-to-Know] law — to make decisions out of the public’s view.”

Town Counsel James Sessler countered that selectmen are following the requirements of the Right-to-Know law, sometimes referred to by its statue number, 91-A.

During the hearing in Belknap Superior Court, Sessler said that whenever a quorum of the Board of Selectmen gathers, that is considered a meeting, and that workshops are simply meetings by another name. He said the selectmen typically hold them to either deal with a specific issue or an issue that requires more-detailed or longer discussion than would be feasible at the board’s regular, semi-monthly meetings.

Still, Sessler told the judge, the selectmen follow the requirement to give advance notice of the workshop as well as the business that will be dealt with, and it keeps minutes of what business was transacted.

Clay told the court there are no agendas disseminated in advance for the workshops; there is no opportunity for public comment; there have been no audio or video recordings of the proceedings; and the minutes of those meetings are deficient when compared to those of the board’s regular meetings.

He further argued that nonpublic sessions that have taken place during those workshops are illegal because there has been no advance notice that they will take place.

Sessler told the judge that agendas are posted at least 24 hours before the meeting takes place and he said he had provided copies of them for the court.

“Mr. Clay wants the court to think we do not have agendas,” Sessler said, “but we do, even though 91-A doesn’t require it. But it’s [a] good practice.”

Later in the 1½-hour hearing, Sessler said, “The board is doing what they’re supposed to do. They follow the rules.”

He said the workshops are not recorded because there is only enough money in the selectmen’s budget to make video recordings of the regular meetings, but he noted that any member of the public is free to record the workshops.

There is no legal requirement that nonpublic sessions must be placed on an agenda, Sessler said.

Clay and Sessler did agree on one thing: that whenever the board votes to seal the minutes of a nonpublic session, the open minutes should state why the minutes are being kept from public view. He said the law permits the sealing of minutes only to protect an individual’s reputation, or because it would be inexpedient to release the minutes at that time.

“Sometimes we do make mistakes. Sometimes we don’t get it right,” Sessler said, adding that the town boards would include the reason minutes are sealed from now on.

In his complaint against the town, Clay asked the judge to issue an injunction barring the town from holding workshop sessions, but Sessler told O’Neill an injunction would be unnecessary.

“They’re violating the law and they need to stop it,” Clay said. “They may amend their rules, but they won’t change their ways without your firm hand in this matter,” he told O’Neill.

O’Neill made no ruling during Tuesday’s hearing. He said he would take time to consider the case, but gave no indication of when he might issue a ruling.