George Epstein

I like lawyers. Some of my best friends are lawyers. Lawyers provide great entertainment — John Grisham and Scott Turow books, Aly MacBeal and LA Law, even the occasional classic book/flick combo like "To Kill a Mockingbird". Lawyers get a great education via the Socratic method. Their best professors don't feed them facts. They ask their students questions and guide them toward a discovery of the law — a technique that should be used more throughout our education system.

I also know that lawyers do silly stuff. They sue fast food joints because they make their coffee too hot or their patrons too fat. They form a Dream Team and spring O.J. by playing the race card and using lousy rhymes like "if it doesn't fit, you cannot convict". They produce the most offensive ads short of the "personal care" products industry. But neither the good nor the bad that lawyers do is the topic of this column.

The problem today is how we use or rather, misuse our lawyers. You wouldn't hire a builder to construct whatever she wished. If your car is running fine, you wouldn't let your mechanic replace your sparkplugs when all you wanted was an oil change. You ask the deli person to cut your cold cuts real thin and dictate where your masseuse should rub. You listen, you learn, you take advice, but in the end, you direct what functions the expert service providers perform.

Let's look at two examples from Mount Washington Valley local government. First, there are the mysterious workings of the North Conway Water Precinct. Apparently, allegations of impropriety in its operations came to the attention of the precinct's local law firm. The issue was, in turn, referred to a big Manchester firm and the MRI consulting group. Over a period of many months and perhaps a hundred grand in fees, the voters and taxpayers of the precinct were told nothing except that a "legal review" was being performed. The precinct superintendent was suspended — but no reason provided.

Some information has subsequently come out alleging misuse of precinct resources, but nothing approaching the 100 grand spent investigating the potential misdeeds. Now let's say a lawyer goes to a business owner and says we may have a problem and it may even have a criminal component. Does the business owner pay the law firm a couple hundred bucks an hour to perform a "legal review" or do you contact the police or the county attorney and tell them what's up and let them do their thing? Can you imagine a modest sized local business spending $100k to operate its own CSI unit?

Now let's visit my home town of Madison. We've had a bit of trouble with police chiefs in recent years, and we had one sue us for firing him. As a trial approached that would have publicized his alleged shortcomings and/or any failures in the selectmen's management, the town and the chief agreed on a settlement — a secret settlement that apparently involved town money. How will the town budget and financial reports hide this payment from the Town Meeting? How will money raised and appropriated at Town Meeting be spent without an accounting to the voters?

Who is the bad guy in these situations? The lawyers are only doing their job. Leave it all to us, they say. Don't you open your mouth — you might give the "opposition" something they can use in court. It is the lawyers' job to protect our public servants from liability — any time you talk you create the potential for liability. From the perspective of an attorney, the less said the better. The public officials are just volunteers looking to avoid personal legal fees and perhaps gain re-election. They are taking the advice of their high-paid legal talent. No one is doing anything evil, but the end result is wrong.

Government must occasionally discuss matters in private to negotiate the best deals and make personnel decisions while providing public employees with a modicum of privacy. But private discussions are one thing, secret actions another. When the settlement is reached or the personnel action taken, they should be both public and clearly explained.

Private businesses enter into sealed agreements all the time, but the owners of those enterprises know the terms of the deals. The "owners" of a town or precinct are the voters and should be apprised of all the details of their enterprise. New Hampshire's Right To Know Law should be modified to ban secret cash settlements by government entities. If an action like the suspension of an employee is taken publicly, then some basis for the action should be provided — even if that basis is just a statement of the "allegation" being investigated.

Most of all, local government officials (and our federal officials, as well) should remember that secrecy is the enemy of good government. Right To Know should be followed in spirit as well as to the letter.

George Epstein, chairman of The Echo Group, lives in Madison and can be reached at gepstein@Echoman.com.