Ruth Larson: Delegation whited out names of members in communication with legal counsel

To The Daily Sun,

When Rusty McLear applied to be a Gunstock Commissioner in April of 2020, it was for a five-year term, as advertised by the Belknap County delegation. Later in 2020, Chair Michael Sylvia confirmed in writing that it was a five-year term, but a legal technicality was later found that supposedly made the term a question mark. This error may have started out as an innocent mistake, but Sylvia and other delegation leaders turned this mistake to their advantage in their Gunstock power grab, ultimately succeeding in ousting McLear.

They and their political allies on the Gunstock Area Commission pretended that the only way to remedy the problem was Rusty’s removal, with the whole cabal insisting their only motive was compliance with the law.

The obvious and easy remedy for Sylvia’s blunder is to reappoint Rusty McLear when a new commissioner is chosen on April 12. He is supremely well-qualified, and served with great distinction until the recent political brouhaha. Whether the delegation will give any serious consideration to his candidacy is in doubt, considering their obvious penchant for appointing political allies who will do their bidding instead of more qualified candidates.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers of Belknap County, Michael Sylvia outdid himself with an even greater blunder when he threatened members of the then GAC with removal and possible criminal action. That set into motion a series of legal actions, with the GAC going to court to prevent Reps. Norm Silber, Sylvia, Ray Howard and their fellow travelers from carrying out their threats, and the delegation incurring a more than $36,000+ legal bill as a result of their folly.

Interestingly, the legal bill contains over 60 places where the names of the persons in communication with the lawyers is whited out. Why would the delegation try to hide who was communicating with the legal team? It has nothing to do with legal strategy, as the names reveal nothing. (The legal strategy was quite public anyway, with briefs and oral argument on both sides available to the public). So why the secrecy?

The plausible explanation for redacting the names (Silber and Sylvia, obviously) was fear of liability under RSA 24:15 (I), which provides that no county officer “shall pay or agree to pay...money in excess of any appropriation.." On Nov. 16, 2021, the delegation voted to retain legal counsel and pay up to $20,000 in costs. The retainer agreement addressed to Norman Silber, who obviously made the arrangements, was completely open-ended with no money limit at all. So much for the $200,000 maximum. Sylvia signed the agreement, so liability under RSA 24:15 (I) appears shared between Silber and Sylvia.

These arrogant representatives may say “so what?”, but RSA 24:16 allows removal from office of persons violating 24:15. A petition of five county taxpayers can apply for such removal. Now does it become clear why Silber and Sylvia wanted their names redacted?

Either via 24:16 or by vote in November, they need to be removed.

Ruth Larson

Alton