Police increasingly active in local politics, but at their own peril

BELMONT — When voters head to the polls on Tuesday, one of the items they will decide on will be Warrant Article 33, brought by petition, asking if the town's police chief should be removed. The reasoning behind the ballot traces its roots to a two-year-old election cycle. The explanation for the article was curtailed during the town deliberative session, and even if the town votes overwhelmingly to approve the item, it doesn't actually have the power to remove the chief. 

Over the past few years, police departments have become increasingly active in town politics, and some have stepped out of bounds while acting in this new arena. In multiple cases, these incidents have resulted in "cease and desist" and warning letters from the state's office of the Attorney General. One of these letters found its way to Mark Lewandoski, chief of Belmont Police, and resulted in Article 33 of the Belmont town warrant.

The article was drafted by resident Charles Gravenhorst, who said he was concerned about what he saw as inappropriate campaigning for passage of a new police station in 2020. In Gravenhorst's original draft of the article, for which he collected the necessary petitions to put it before town voters, he included a reference to the AG's letter. That reference was removed during the town's deliberative session on Feb. 5.

That removal made the ballot question “null and void,” Gravenhorst said at the deliberative session last month, “it now fails to inform the public.”

'Every vote counts'

Gravenhorst's interest in local government was sparked by a desire to see how his taxes were being spent. In 2020, Gravenhorst noticed fliers and a brochure highlighting the reasons the town needed a new $3.5 million dollar police station and a message that “every vote counts,” written under the photograph of a local K9 officer.

“This was not an objective, neutral informational mailer,” Gravenhorst asserted. “This was a marketing device. Right around the same time, I started seeing the big 12 by 14 'vote for Article 2' signs all over the place.”

On the 2020 Town Warrant, Article 2 was the appropriation of funds for the new department building.

“In particular, one caught my attention because one of these signs was right smack in the middle of the library front lawn. I know that's illegal.”

Gravenhorst dug deeper and found that the town had paid for the mailers, fliers and brochure, and had worked with the police department's marketing team to do so. They did not however, provide funding for the signs.

Prior to the selectboard's work session on January 9, 2020, town administrator Jeanne Beaudin invited Lewandoski and the “marketing team” for the new police department to attend. At the session, attendees discussed the cost of printing and distributing the materials, according to minutes of the meeting.

Beaudin defended the brochure and mailers, stating that they were not explicitly advocating for the warrant article.

“It was put out to provide information to the voters as to why a new building was necessary,” Beaudin said. “We stand by the fact that nothing in the brochures was inappropriate.” Gravenhorst disagreed.

The signs were put up by police officers under instruction from Lewandoski in an email sent on Feburary 29, 2020, which was acquired by Gravenhorst through a Freedom of Information request and provided to the Daily Sun. Lewandoski also encouraged subordinate officers to “talk with everyone they know that will support this and get them to the poles on the 10^th. We need all the yes votes we can muster to get over the 3/5ths margin.”

Implicit advocacy

After Gravenhorst gained access to these emails and town minutes, he filed a complaint to the Attorney General's office. The result was a November 4, 2021 "cease and desist" letter sent to Lewandoski by the office of the Attorney General. The order stated that neither the brochure nor the postcard constitute explicit advocacy, but acknowledged that there were some problems with the department's conduct.

“Rather, these elements are more likely evidence of 'implicit advocacy,' the regulation of which has been recognized by courts as being unconstitutional,” the letter read.

As for the chief's instructions to subordinates to reach out to voters and put up signs, the letter concluded that Lewandowski's actions didn't amount to electioneering because he does not technically count as a public employee under the electioneering statute because he is “a person appointed by the chief executive legislative body of the public”. Lewandoski fit into this exception due to his appointment by the select board, which is considered an executive body.

However, Lewandoski's subordinates can fall under the definition of public employees in this case. The letter stated that Lewandoski's instructions to subordinates “raise significant concerns of Propriety. Particularly troubling is the use of police resources—public resources – to advocate for Article #2.”

The letter's analysis continued, stating that the Attorney General's office understands that government can use public funds to support its own measures, but that police departments rely on public confidence and that these actions could erode the public's trust in the department.

The letter concluded that Lewandoski's statements “promoted subordinate officers to possibly engage in electioneering.”

As a result, the AG's office ordered the department to discontinue any actions that would raise these types of concerns. The department was also ordered to submit a remediation plan. The department did so successfully, and the matter was concluded.

For town administrator Jeanne Beaudin, that seemed to be enough.

“I do not feel that it should erode public trust,” Beaudin said. “We’ve addressed any of the concerns that were raised, relative to our town's personnel.”

Guard rails

As for Article 33, even if the entire town voted in favor of it, Beaudin stated that it does not have the power to remove Lewandoski from his position, as he was appointed by the selectboard, not voters.

“While we found some things were done wrong in Belmont, we didn't find anything that would result in criminal charges,” said New Hampshire Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards, who authored the Cease and Desist order. “We aren't bringing criminal charges against the subordinate officers, but we wanted to make sure the guard rails were very clear.”

Edwards stated that the incident is part of a recent trend of police stations and other municipalities receiving electioneering complaints throughout New Hampshire. Edwards shared two more letters with the Sun as evidence of this trend.

The first was a warning letter to the Barnstead Police Department sent out November 4, 2021 addressing a complaint regarding the department's hosting of a Women for Trump event during the 2020 election at the town's police station. The warned that the department should operate with more due diligence in the future.

“When a police department actively seeks the endorsement of a presidential campaign, as in this case, it is troubling because it creates questions about the agency's ability to enforce laws dispassionately,” the letter read.

The second document shared with the Daily Sun involved the Milford Police Department, Fire Department and Ambulance Service for advocating for a town warrant article on their official Facebook pages. The letter concluded that “these individuals who had access to and administrative privileges over their respective department's Facebook pages, are subject to the electioneering prohibition under RSA 659;44-a.”

A new type of challenge

“In the last six months or so, suddenly this issue has arisen for really the first time with police departments moving forward on promoting or opposing issues that are on the ballot,” Edwards said, citing an uptick in civic and electoral engagement throughout the United States.

“This was a new type of challenge starting last fall. We issued a similar letter to the town of Milford, we have two more that are going out soon to a city and another town, we’re going to revise another letter we sent out. This is in fairness to police chiefs as this is a new issue for them that they were dealing with.”

The Attorney General's office elaborated further on their approach to to enforcing this law, stating that they generally approach enforcing election laws as guide lines, rather than charging parties right out of the gate.

"We do not charge people with a crime immediately as one of the elements of a crime is to prove that there was an intent to violate the law," the letter explained. "While ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse, intent can be hard to prove when the law is not clear. As a result, our first step in most elections matters is usually to issue a warning letter, with our second step being a cease and desist order for an additional violation. In the cases involving these police departments, we moved to cease and desist orders as the first step because we wanted to make sure that these situations were not repeated in the departments we were dealing with."

Lewandowski did not respond to a request for an interview.