Chairman Glennon called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.
Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes: Town Council to Consider Acceptance of Minutes
October 24, 2008
Motion: To accept the October 24, 2008 Special Meeting minutes.
Motioned: Councilor Ploski
Seconded: Councilor Kwaks
Councilor Kwaks noted this was the meeting Administrator Wojnowski had requested the revision to his statement. The Council received the verbatim minutes; she asked if those could be included as well as the revision Administrator Wojnowski provided.
The Council discussed including the verbatim minutes, revised minutes or both. It was agreed to include the verbatim portion in the official records of the minutes.
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
October 29, 2008 Special Meeting
Motion: Toaccept the October 29, 2008 Special Meeting minutes.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Carr
Seconded: Councilor LaBranche
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
November 5, 2008 Business Meeting
Motion: To accept the minutes from the November 5, 2008 Business Meeting.
Motioned: Councilor Ploski
Seconded: Councilor LaBranche
Councilor Ploski noted on Page 6, Chairman Glennon had noted this would be discussed further at the November Workshop.
Vote: 6-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Abstain
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Councilor Minutelli abstained because he had been absent.
November 15, 2008 Site Walk
Motion: To accept the minutes from the November 15, 2008 Site Walk.
Motioned: Councilor LaBranche
Seconded: Vice-Chairman Carr
Chairman Glennon noted Christopher Gaziano should be listed as being present.
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Abstain
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Councilor Ploski abstained because he had not been present for the site walk.
November 19, 2008 Workshop
Chairman Glennon noted these minutes were not in the packet.
Motion: To accept the November 19, 2008 Workshop.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Carr
Seconded: Councilor Bergeron
Chairman Glennon noted the minutes should reflect it was a Workshop, not a Business Meeting.
Vote: 6-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Abstain
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Councilor Ploski abstained because he had been absent.
Public Forum – Non-Agenda Items Only
Chairman Glennon reminded the public that agenda item one on tonight’s agenda related to Councilor Kwaks.
Councilor LaBranche asked if the public would be allowed to speak during the discussion of agenda item one.
Chairman Glennon noted he would address that once the Council got to that item.
Councilor LaBranche noted he had read the rules of procedure. He was unable to find in the Charter or in the Rules of Procedure where individuals were not able to speak during the Public Forum on an agenda item.
Chairman Glennon recalled it was located in a document. He recalled past Council Chairmen referencing this document. Since this guide has always been in place, the Council would continue to follow the guideline.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel of 7 Gonet Drive asked if a motion was made and seconded to allow public to speak and was voted on, whether the public would then be allowed to speak.
Chairman Glennon noted he did not make the rules. The policies and procedures have been on the books longer than he has been on the Council. He felt blindsided in being asked to produce the document which contains this particular rule.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel felt Councilor LaBranche had a legitimate question.
Chairman Glennon stated he would have appreciated it if Councilor LaBranche had asked that question prior to this evening so the policy could have been looked up.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel asked for her question to be answered; if a motion is made, seconded and voted on, would the public be allowed to speak.
Chairman Glennon noted that was not procedure because it would be considered public comments. The Chairman is the person who runs the meeting. The public has had two opportunities to speak to this issue; the evening Jennifer Jarvis brought it up and another opportunity during the Business Meeting in November. The public will have an opportunity to speak if the Town Council decides to move forward with an investigation. Tonight is the Council’s opportunity to decide based on what has been brought forward to determine whether there will be an investigation. The agenda item was worded as it is because the Citizen’s Initiative Petition has been found for the second time to be deficient; therefore the Council would be discussing Section 3.4 regarding the Qualifications of Councilors. The wording was not intended to be deceitful.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel noted where Chairman Glennon has requested the respect from Councilor LaBranche to bring forward the information so Council could look up where the rule or policy originated from; she felt the public was owed that same respect in knowing when they would be able to speak on this issue.
Chairman Glennon noted the protocol of not allowing public comment on an agenda item at a Business Meeting has always been in place. Until the Council knew differently, they would continue to follow this process.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel asked for her question to be answered.
Chairman Glennon stated it would be out of protocol, but he would not have a problem with it.
Wil Hamel stated the Newmarket Veteran’s Memorial Trust Committee would like to honor a certain person who has given help and guidance when it was needed. He asked Chris Hawkins to stand up.
Rochelle Sharples of 10 Lamprey River Park, secretary for the Newmarket Veteran’s Memorial Trust Committee read the Certificate of Appreciation. She acknowledged Chris Hawkins busy schedule and thanked him for his commitment of time.
Chris Hawkins accepted the award and stated it was a humbling experience to be honored by people who have given honorable service to their community and country.
Rochelle Sharples noted the Veteran’s Committee had held a fundraiser this past summer over Old Home Weekend and the Heritage Festival. The fundraiser had been to raise funds for the memorial. She recognized the businesses, organizations and individuals who had donated gift certificates and/or prizes or services; Wil Hamel, Rosa Construction, Bob Turcotte of Turcotte Remodeling, Riverworks Restaurant and Tavern, Carpenters Greenhouse, Phil Mitchell of Seacoast Chimney Sweep, Allen Mitchell of Homestead Woodworking, Proulx Oil & Propane, Rockingham Gas, Kuzek’s Garage, Flora Ventures, KJ’s Bowlomania, Optima Day Spa, Panzanellas, American Legion Post 67, Subway at Evan’s Mart, Keith Rayeski, Appledore Real Estate and an anonymous donor. She acknowledged the corporate donations including Cheney East Corporation, Jablonski Painting and Wall Papering and Ron Lanier Insurance agency.
Chairman Glennon recalled an email from the Chairman of the Veteran’s Memorial Trust Committee requesting to be put on the December Workshop for design review for the memorial.
Rochelle Sharples corrected the request had been for the January Workshop.
Chairman Glennon noted he would add that to the January Workshop agenda.
Representative Dennis Abbott stated he would be representing himself as State Representative this evening; he had been sworn in today in Concord. He thanked Newmarket for electing him to serve a seventh term. He quoted Mark Twain stating: “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” He suggested it could be stated ‘No man’s life, liberty or property is safe when the Town Council is in session’ recently. He quoted Mark Twain once more stating: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you may be uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you may be misinformed.” He discussed an article in the newspaper from a couple of weeks ago regarding a gravel pit application. He questioned how the state could put one of his citizens in jeopardy after having received a permit. As part of his duties, he felt he should go to Concord to look into the issue. In doing this, he asked what are the statutes requiring three public postings and is having another public hearing appropriate given the time lapsed since the granting of the permit. He has had no contact with the people involved in the issue and has been looking at this in the eyes of a legislator. In examining the statutes, he found nine places where three public postings are required; most of these circumstances relate to cooperative schools. He noted he had provided the Town Administrator with this information. The requirement for posting in three public places is inconsistent with land use law, budgetary, public hearing requirements and the Town Meeting warrant requirements. He recalled a time where the Town had scheduled a Special Town Meeting but had missed the day count; he had gone to Concord, filed legislation and validated the actions taken by the Town. He had not required the Town to conduct another Town Meeting, just as he does not feel requiring another meeting regarding the gravel pit permit is required simply because it has the oddity of three public postings. He explained although his filing period for filing legislation ended last week, the Senate’s filing period is still open. He intends to file legislation to change the postings back to two where it belongs. He asked the Council where the third public posting place is beyond the Library and Post Office.
Chairman Glennon answered the Town Hall was a third place.
Representative Dennis Abbott explained it is required to have a posting located where the meeting will be held. He revisited his question regarding whether it was appropriate to hold another public hearing given the time lapse. The answer he received was another public hearing could involve municipal stopple and latches. There are statutory revisions to legalize town meeting procedural defects. The answer boiled down to ‘no harm, no foul’. He asked the Town to consider what they were doing. He also asked if every public posting had been reviewed in the last two years regarding all public hearings. He asked if residents in this Town were safe. He expressed his concern with the actions taken in this Town. He felt what is fair for one should be fair for all. He recommended the Council read the information he has provided and let the issue lay. He would take care of the administrative part of it, as he has already begun to do so.
Jennifer Jarvis of 7 Raymond Lane addressed the Council stating on November 21, 2008 she received a letter from Attorney Bruton which stated Attorney Ratigan, representing Councilor Kwaks, was challenging the validity of the Initiative Petition. It is the contention of Councilor Kwaks the Initiative Petition can only be used to initiate ordinances. The Town Charter Section 8.2 Initiative Petition states the Council shall hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote, on the merits of every initiative petition which concerns a matter in which the Town is empowered to act; this section does not specify ordinances. The Charter was originally reviewed by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, Secretary of State and Department of Revenue Administration. The final report of the Newmarket Charter Commission states “Throughout the year Town government must be responsive to the individual citizen. The charter guarantees the right to be heard by the Council, to petition legislation and referenda of Council action.” Councilor Kwaks’ attorney makes reference to RSA 49-C:33 Optional Provisions/Limitations; this RSA is referenced by RSA 49-D:3 E Local Option Town Charters which states: “Citizens powers of initiative, referendum and recall as described in RSA 49-C which reads: “City Charters may include provisions relating to any or all of the following matters: initiative procedures whereby voters may initiate ordinance by petition, require consideration of the petition ordinance by the elected body and failing satisfactory consideration require a referendum to enact the ordinance.” She asked if the Town had the right to craft the Town Charter to allow the citizens of Newmarket to bring by petition a matter in which the Town is empowered to act. Towns act on matters other than ordinances. She asked if the Town had the right to afford citizens to bring other matters in addition to ordinances to the Council. The law requires Towns at a minimum to allow the citizens to bring petitions to act upon an ordinance. She asked if this prohibited Towns to allow citizens additional rights to be heard by the Council on matters other than ordinances. She asked if citizens are not permitted to petition, how are the citizens guaranteed to be heard on matters other than ordinances. She asked if the present petition was not lawful because the matter itself may not be lawfully passed or is the present petition not lawful because the Town Council is prohibited from acting on a petition which is not specifically addressing an ordinance. She asked if the Town Charter was legal. She asked if the Town Council violated State law when it acted upon previous petitions that were unrelated to ordinances. She hoped this could be addressed and made clear so the Town Charter could accurately and more clearly set forth the process. She thanked the Council for their time and stated she looked forward to their public response to her questions.
Chairman Glennon asked Jennifer Jarvis to provide a copy of her statement to Administrator Wojnowski. He asked the Council how they wanted to proceed. He expressed his concern with this issue relating to statements from Council legal counsel and Councilor Kwaks attorney’s statements. Without demeaning Jennifer Jarvis’ statements, he noted the Council had received this opinion from two individual law firms.
Jennifer Jarvis asked if she should provide a copy of the letter so a third attorney can review it.
Chairman Glennon asked if Council wanted to send this to Attorney F. X. Bruton for review. He noted his hesitation with that because of the perception he has received from the community asking why continuous review of a citizen’s petition is being paid for by the tax payers. He suggested this may be different because it is in response to comments made by the attorney.
Jennifer Jarvis assumed Councilors would know the answers to this; that legal opinion would not be necessary. She assumed these are questions the Councilors already asked when they had been told the petition had not been legal, when in fact the Charter shows it is. She asked if Councilors are not questioning the legality of the Town Charter, why they are questioning the legality of the petition which goes along with the Town Charter.
Chairman Glennon noted Councilor Kwaks questioned it and brought it for review to her attorney. Councilor Kwaks’ attorney brought it to Attorney F. X. Bruton’s attention. Both attorneys had agreed the petition was invalid. Councilors also were informed there are no provisions within the State RSAs which trumps anything local governments may have in their charters.
Jennifer Jarvis asked if the Council felt they were unable to answer these questions without legal opinion. She noted she would turn these questions in to the Council expecting there to be answers to them. She noted her surprise the Council did not know some of these answers.
Chairman Glennon felt some of the questions were legal in nature. He added the Council does not normally respond to public comments.
Councilor LaBranche made it clear there were seven councilors on the Council. Each councilor received the attorney’s opinion on the evening of the meeting. He asked the public to respect that and understand the Council is not made up of lawyers. He preferred to see if a third party could get involved to answer the questions. He suggested seeing if the Local Government Center (LGC) could be involved. He expressed his concern with receiving legal opinions that change.
Chairman Glennon agreed expressing he has reservations with the attorneys the Town has used.
Councilor Kwaks stated Jennifer Jarvis’ questions have been answered in the letter she received November 21, 2008 from the Town attorney. She did not see the purpose in spending more money on this issue.
Councilor Minutelli asked if the letter forwarded to the petitioner from the attorney was a public document.
Chairman Glennon noted it was a public document and was available at the Town Hall.
Councilor Minutelli asked if LGC had staff attorneys available to provide opinions to the community. One of the concerns he has heard is spending tax payers’ dollars. He asked if as part of the fees paid annually to the LGC if that provides access to attorneys who may be able to render an opinion on this issue.
Administrator Wojnowski noted those services were available through the fees paid.
Councilor Minutelli noted requesting an opinion from LGC would reduce funds spent on attorney’s fees from tax payers, while receiving a third party opinion.
Administrator Wojnowski noted LGC would provide broad scope opinions but would refer communities to check with their own legal counsel for specific questions.
Councilor Kwaks noted there are other portions of the Charter that may be questioned. She recommended getting a Charter Commission together to review the Charter for any possible defaults or inconsistencies.
Lorrianne Caprioli of 40 Riverbend Road noted she had left her home from watching this when there was the explanation as to when the public could speak. She explained part of what had motivated her to come down to speak was the statement that past Town Council Chairmen have not allowed the public to speak on agenda items. She clarified that when she was Chairman of the Town Council, she had understood that to mean if there was a public comment opportunity on an agenda item later in the meeting, it was requested the public hold their comments until that point. If there would not be an opportunity for the public to speak on an agenda item later in the meeting, public comment was welcome during the public forum.
Chairman Glennon noted it is the privy of the Chairman to determine whether public comments will be allowed.
Janice Rosa of Wadleigh Falls Road stated she had received resolution passed by the Town Council regarding rules and procedures. She asked if it was each Councilor’s intention when they signed that resolution not to allow the public to speak. She asked for a show of hands of Councilors who had signed the petition whose intent was to not allow public to speak.
Chairman Glennon asked at what portion of the meeting is she indicating public comments.
Janice Rosa noted she is referring to all meetings. A citizen used to be able to come to a public meeting to address the items on a Business Meeting agenda, now they are unable to. The public is now unable to speak to items on a Workshop agenda. She asked when the public would be able to speak to any agenda item, not just this item, but any item on an agenda.
Chairman Glennon noted usually the public can speak at a public hearing for an ordinance or other such items. It is up to the Chairman as to when the public is allowed to speak.
Janice Rosa asked for a show of hands from Councilors who thought they were limiting the rights of the residents to speak on agenda items during meetings. She felt Chairman Glennon was trying to shut out the public from speaking on Town matters. She felt if this discussion was about Rosa Construction or the gravel pit, the public would be allowed to speak. She noted 421 people have signed a petition. The Chairman has stated the opportunity to speak has been given. She noted one time there were three minutes allotted to each public speaker. She asked again for the show of hands.
Chairman Glennon warned Janice Rosa any disrespectful outburst towards a Councilor would be grounds for removal from the meeting. Janice Rosa was removed from the meeting.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel noted at a meeting she had seen on television, a petition 412 citizens had brought forward, the attorney’s opinion had been acceptable.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the Council had received correspondence from Attorney F. X. Bruton regarding the petition that had been sent to him. The opinion had been the petition was valid and appropriate for the Council to act on it.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel asked if Attorney Bruton then inquired Councilor Kwaks’ attorney to instruct Attorney Bruton that he had been wrong in rendering that opinion.
Administrator Wojnowski noted Attorney Bruton had received correspondence from Councilor Kwaks’ attorney indicating based upon RSAs, petitions were limited to ordinances. He had indicated this was the only way the Council could respond to initiative petitions; therefore the petition was no longer valid.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel stated the 412 people who signed the petition now have no recourse. She asked what these petitioners were supposed to do who have legitimate concerns about the behavior and actions of a Councilor.
Chairman Glennon answered the petition was found to be void. It was the recommendation of the attorney for the Council to have a discussion as to whether to move forward with an investigation. That discussion was on tonight’s agenda. He noted he would allow Councilor Kwaks to respond to the allegations since she has not yet had that opportunity.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel noted this was not a new issue. This has been going on since October. She expressed her concern with Attorney Bruton was not being fully aware of the legal advice he has been providing. She noted the tax payers are paying this legal counsel to represent the Town in providing legal opinions.
Chairman Glennon noted Councilor LaBranche has recommended using a third party for a new opinion. He noted he had been stunned when he read the letter from Attorney Bruton agreeing with Attorney Rattigan’s interpretation of the RSAs.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel referenced an editorial in the Exeter Newsletter which discussed this Town had a lot of business needing to be done including the mills, schools and water. She hoped the Town could get to those issues, but not at the expense of not hearing what 412 citizens would like addressed.
Jennifer Jarvis noted as a former Chairman she echoed what Lorrianne Caprioli said; it is the Chairman’s discretion whether to allow public comment. When she was Chairman the public forum during the Business Meeting had been for non-agenda items because the public had been allowed to speak to each agenda item. No public comment was allowed during the Workshops because that was an opportunity for the Council to discuss the items. She noted Chairman Glennon continues to say that he does not make the rules but he also states that he decides when to allow the public to speak. She pointed out the Chairman can choose to allow the public to speak. She added Chairman Glennon has made the statement that he did not want Jennifer Jarvis to feel slighted. She stated she is beginning to feel slighted because a citizen of this Town was just removed from the meeting for insulting the Chairman, while a Town Councilor had called her the Anti-Christ. This Councilor had never been called out of order.
Martha McNeil noted she had much to say but was cautioned in fear of going against protocol. She expressed her concern with the citizens of the Town not having a chance to speak when a citizen of the Town has been defamed by certain sitting Councilors. She asked when the public would be allowed to speak on this issue.
Chairman Glennon noted the Council would discuss and decide whether to allow public comments. The public has had the opportunity to speak; at the meeting Jennifer Jarvis brought forward the accusations and also at a meeting in November. If the Council decides to move forward with an investigation, the public will have an opportunity to speak.
Martha McNeil offered her tax dollars to get this issue straightened out.
Rochelle Sharples of 10 Lamprey River Park asked if Councilor Kwaks will be able to vote on whether the Council moves forward with an investigation.
Chairman Glennon stated Councilor Kwaks would not be able to vote on that decision.
Sally Rosa of Wadleigh Falls Road asked if the public would be limited when they are finally able to speak.
Chairman Glennon noted the reason for the three minute limit had been the large audience. He added it would be a vote of the Council. There is usually a three to five minute limit. He noted if there is an investigation, a question to the legal team would be if public comment should be limited to the accusations as brought forward.
Chairman Glennon closed the Public Forum at 8:01pm.
Councilor Bergeron referenced resolution passed August 6, 2008 relating to the establishment of Rules for Council Proceedings. He referenced Section 12 Permission to Address the Council. He felt some of Jennifer Jarvis’ questions may be answered. He read: “Persons other than members of the Town Council and Town Officers shall be permitted to address the Council outside of Public Forum at the sole discretion of the Chair. Comments by members of the public outside of Public Forum shall be confined to the topic at hand and shall be limited to no more than five minutes without the Chair’s prior consent. The speaker shall not enter into a debate with any person, Chairman or Council member.” He referenced Section 13 Suspending of Rules reading: “These rules may be temporarily suspended by a vote of a majority of the members present and voting.”
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
1. Council Exercise of Authority on Section 3.4 Qualifications of Councilors per the Town Charter
Chairman Glennon explained this is what the letter Jennifer Jarvis’ read into the record at the October Business Meeting is referring to. Councilor Kwaks has not had the opportunity to address those allegations yet.
Councilor Kwaks referenced Section 3.4 Qualifications of Councilors stating there are certain criteria regarding qualifications of Councilors. A vacancy can be declared if a Councilor has been convicted of a federal or state crime, if a Councilor has missed three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings without leave of the Council, if a Councilor has missed one-third of all meetings within one calendar year without leave of the Council, has interfered with Administration, falsified records, misapplied Town funds or property, or is guilty of public conduct the result of which would bring loss of respect for the Council or Town of Newmarket. She referenced the petition stating one of the items listed had been interference with Town Administration. She noted she has not, nor has the Council received any information from the Town Administrator indicating she has interfered with Administrative duties. She noted public conduct the result of which would bring a loss of respect for the Council or Town of Newmarket stating Jennifer Jarvis indicates a phone call regarding a flag. She stated a constituent had called her; she called on that person’s behalf. If the Town did not want Councilors to do anything on behalf of the constituents of the Town, perhaps someone else should run for Council. She noted she has the right as Town Councilor, just as any member of any Board within the Town has the right to voice their opinions. She stated if every Councilor was dismissed for having an opinion, there would be no quorum. She referenced a report regarding the permit for the work on Jennifer Jarvis’ building. She noted a permit was obtained on December 1, 2005 by RAS Renovations to do approximately $1,000 worth of work. That permit was not utilized according to Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent, and as the record shows, two years, two months after the building permit was obtained before the work began. Building permits typically expire after 180 days. She noted Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent was good and lenient with townspeople who don’t know the rules, he tends to extend permits. Eric Westin had to get another permit on February 20, 2008. The scope of the work had changed from $1,000 to $20,000; the fee for the permit was paid on February 21, 2008. She noted Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent had written on the permit this work would require Heritage Commission review and comments. She noted the Town Council had passed a policy in response to the Forensic Audit that there would be no cash accepted at the Town dump. She had asked several times in public meetings to have a sign put up saying there would be no cash accepted at the Town dump. The policy was passed in July; the sign was not put up until much later. She had been told someone at the dump had accepted cash. She reported this to the Town Administrator. She referenced the police report stating there had been an investigation. She noted she had been made aware of other things concerning Town employees and had brought those things to Administrator Wojnowski’s attention. She noted all of these things do not fit the criteria of Section 3.4. She referenced the stone wall stating it was an allegation that she had called the Planning Board and Code Enforcement about the wall. She stated she didn’t but if she had, she would not be in violation of calling to ask a question. Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent had called her, which could be clarified with Administrator Wojnowski’s permission for Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent to write a statement saying such. She referenced a statement from Town Planner Diane Hardy stating she did not call her about the wall either. She felt these allegations were personal; she had a right to voice her opinion. She asked if every time a Councilor voted “no” if they would be held accountable. Councilors are entitled to have opinions; they may not always agree but are entitled to those opinions. She did not feel that was any reason to have a Councilor disqualified.
Chairman Glennon asked her to go back to the town employee accepting cash at the dump.
Councilor Kwaks noted the way the accusation was stated implied she was accusing someone of stealing; this was not the case. There was a police report on this. She brought the information to the Town Administrator. She is not accusing employees of stealing. She informed the Town Administrator there was a policy not being enforced by a Town employee.
Chairman Glennon referenced the accusation Councilor Kwaks had asked for the receipts from the transfer station. He noted this is public information; anyone from the public can ask for this information. He noted this was the first time Councilor Kwaks had been given an opportunity to speak to the allegations. The public would have an opportunity to speak if the Council decided to move forward with an investigation.
Councilor LaBranche noted it had been his impression through the discussions with legal counsel that the public would not speak at the investigation; it would be more of a court appearance where there is cross examination. It was his understanding the public would not speak at the investigation.
Chairman Glennon noted he understood the public could speak.
Councilor Minutelli noted only the people directly involved in the application would be speaking at that time.
Councilor LaBranche noted the public and the people specifically related to these alleged incidents may not be the same people. It was important to him the public not feel they will be able to speak when there may not be that opportunity.
Councilor Ploski agreed with Councilor LaBranche. During the proceedings, people who are not involved would not be allowed to provide opinions. It would be more of a fact finding excursion.
Councilor Kwaks noted the public can speak during any public forum providing the issue they want to discuss is not on the agenda.
Chairman Glennon asked what the Council felt about allowing public comments tonight.
Motion: To allow public comment on Agenda item one relating to the allegations against Councilor Kwaks.
Motioned: Councilor Bergeron
Seconded: Councilor Ploski
Chairman Glennon asked if the comments would be limited to five minutes or if the Council wished to change that time.
Councilor Bergeron amended his motion to include each comment be limited to five minutes.
Councilor Ploski added he would like the motion amended to include no person would be allowed to speak more than once.
Councilor Bergeron amended the motion to include each person would be allowed to speak once and would be limited to five minutes.
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Chairman Glennon opened the floor to public comments at 8:19pm.
Chairman Glennon indicated each person would be allowed to speak once and would be limited to five minutes. Comments would need to relate to the allegations only.
Martha McNeil stated after many days of soul searching regarding events that have ensued with the Town Council, she felt she needed to state her feelings. She was amazed by the vindictive things that have been said by supposedly intelligent people the citizens of Newmarket have voted into office. She indicated Councilor Kwaks should be ashamed for publicly humiliating, criticizing and bringing up accusations against a citizen who wanted to volunteer and serve on a Town committee. She didn’t realize an FBI investigation had been requested. She suggested a disagreement with Ms. Jarvis could have been handled privately. She noted Councilor Ploski should be ashamed for calling Ms. Jarvis an “Anti-Christ”. She did not feel Ms. Jarvis was an anti-Christ. She noted Chairman Glennon could have called Councilors out of order several times, which would have stopped this whole thing. A citizen was humiliated by two Councilors without repercussions. She noted Chairman Glennon had called Administrator Wojnowski on the carpet; she indicated her pride in Administrator Wojnowski’s answers. She noted it had been implied the seniors who had signed the petition did not know what they were signing. She stated there was not one senior citizen who had signed the petition who did not know what they were signing. As a citizen of Newmarket who had faith in those elected, she hoped this issue could be resolved. She is saddened by the events of the Council relating to this issue. She congratulated Councilors Bergeron, LaBranche and Minutelli for standing up for what is right. The Town Council members should work for all citizens of Newmarket without showing favoritism and should show more love in their actions. If the Town cannot come together as a Town, how are they expected to come together as a nation?
Jennifer Jarvis asked if the Council does move forward with an investigation, that each Councilor do their own fact finding. She would not address tonight the misquotes of Councilor Kwaks, but noted if Councilors did their own fact findings, they would discover there are two roofs on her property; both had been repaired and at separate times.
Eileen Murphy-Hamel asked if there is a vote on the investigation that Councilors search their own conscience as to whether they should recuse themselves due to prejudicial feelings towards Ms. Jarvis. She stated it was her personal opinion Councilor Ploski should recuse himself from the vote for displaying his prejudice by calling Ms. Jarvis an “anti-Christ.”
Chairman Glennon closed the public comments at 8:26pm.
Councilor Ploski addressed the comments made in the petition and tonight stating his comment about Ms. Jarvis being the “anti-Christ of historic preservation” was over the top. A public or private apology has not been proffered because it was dragged into this whole matter. He had been advised by legal counsel not to comment on this. Once this issue is settled, he will be able to make his decision whether to offer an apology.
Councilor Bergeron felt in light of the information that has been presented to the Council, to be fair to all parties, the Council should initiate an investigation of Councilor Kwaks.
Chairman Glennon noted his concern was the Council has already spent $5,000 on this issue. He does not know what the total cost of the investigation would be. From what he has heard it could cost between $10,000 and $15,000 more.
Councilor LaBranche noted the Council has addressed petitions in the past; most recently the petition which resulted in the Forensic Audit, which cost the Town well over $75,000. He noted he was a supporter of the petition. He believed Councilors Kwaks and Ploski as well as Chairman Glennon had been on the Council at the time and had supported that action. He has seen the document which 412 people have signed, he has heard the accusations and also Councilor Kwaks responses to the accusations. He felt the only way to get this resolved would be to face this head on. He would support an investigation into the allegations at this time.
Vice-Chairman Carr felt an investigation is not a bad idea with the exception for the cost to the Town. Her question was even if all of these allegations are proven through an investigation, would that rise to the level of removing a Councilor.
Chairman Glennon echoed those sentiments. He noted Councilor Kwaks had a statement from Town Planner Diane Hardy regarding the stone wall. Councilor Kwaks had reported an incident to the Town Administrator as required by the Town Charter. He noted the flag issue had been poor judgment. There had been a discussion with Project Coordinator Julie Glover within a few days to make amends with Severino. The question about bringing disrespect to the Town Council was a hard one to prove.
Councilor Minutelli stated he had struggled with how best to evaluate what would be heard tonight in an objective way and to make a decision that would make sense to everyone. He has decided to look at the two documents executed by an excess of 400 people recently and previously by a couple hundred. He felt the Council had a responsibility to both the people who had presented the documents as well as Councilor Kwaks to get to the facts of the issue. He expressed his concern with how the meeting has been held stating he felt the Council has participated in a quasi-fact-finding forum; he felt this was out of place.
Chairman Glennon asked if Councilor Minutelli felt it was inappropriate for Councilor Kwaks to speak to the allegations.
Councilor Minutelli felt uncomfortable speaking about a conversation with legal, but felt he may have had a different understanding of legal advice than other Councilors did.
Councilor Ploski felt none of these charges would warrant the dismissal of a Councilor. To waste taxpayer’s money and to force the tax rates up in a future year because this money has been spent is foolish and fool hardy. He did not support an investigation at this time because although 412 people signed the second petition, the concerns do not warrant the dismissal of a Councilor. He felt Councilor Kwaks has not done anything worthy of dismissal. He noted Councilors are able to give their opinion during discussions of appointments. Because Jennifer Jarvis did not like Councilor Kwaks’ opinion, the Town has been thrown into this situation. He noted his initial comments made at the following meeting when Jennifer Jarvis had reapplied were true. His last comment had been emotional and he had been wrong in saying what he did.
Councilor LaBranche noted as far as Section 3.4 relating to interference with Town administration doesn’t necessarily relate to the Town Administrator; interference can include with other departments such as the police department and public works. He referenced the last part of Section 3.4 “. . . or is guilty of public conduct the result of which would bring loss of respect to the Town Council or Town of Newmarket” stating it is disheartening to walk around Town as a Town Councilor and hear this is probably one of the highest rated comedy shows on Channel 13. He felt there was potential for this to apply. He stated he was not prejudging. There were two items under 3.4 that could qualify for dismissal.
Councilor Minutelli stated to vote to initiate an investigation is not to imply there has been any wrongdoing; that determination will come at the culmination of the investigation. Every person involved will have the opportunity to gather their information and present it in a public forum.
Chairman Glennon noted that may be true, but in order to initiate an investigation, there needs to be cause to do so. Councilor Kwaks, having had the opportunity to explain herself, has indicated she has a letter stating she did not interfere with administration and she has a verbal statement from Dan Vincent that there was no interference.
Councilor Ploski referenced Section 3.4 “loss of respect to the Town Council or Town of Newmarket” stating what has brought a loss of respect to the Town Council and Town of Newmarket is the actions of everyone involved.
Vice-Chairman Carr asked for the Council to keep in mind while there may be four hundred plus people who feel this way about Councilor Kwaks there are also people who do not feel that way. She was not comfortable spending the Town’s money for this investigation. She noted even if Councilor Kwaks was found guilty of everything she has been accused of, she did not feel it rose to the level of removing her from office.
Motion: To conduct an investigation into the allegations of the citizens of Newmarket against Councilor Kwaks as outlined in the document dated October 20, 2008.
Motioned: Councilor LaBranche
Seconded: Councilor Bergeron
Vote: 3-3 Motion fails
Councilor Kwaks Abstain
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Nay
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Nay
Chairman Glennon Nay
Chairman Glennon noted the motion failed.
Councilor Ploski publicly apologized to Jennifer Jarvis for his comment about the “anti-Christ.”
The Council recessed from 8:46 until 8:58pm.
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
2. Approval for Town Administrator to Sign Necessary Paperwork for Smith Sisters Conservation Land Purchase
Administrator Wojnowski noted the closing for the acquisition of this property would take place either the 17th or 18th of December. During legal review of the conservation easement deed a question arose relative to the Town of Newmarket’s future opportunity to drill a well on the property. He spoke with Peter Garrett from Emery & Garrett regarding whether the Town would look to that location for a potential water source. Peter Garrett indicated there conditions are not preferable on that property. Peter Garrett also indicated if another well would be drilled in the plains area, it would be northwest of the Bennett Well. Given that information, there is no issue except for the Town purchasing a surface and subsurface water quality protection for the Bennett and Sewell wells.
Motion: To move forward with the purchase of the Smith Sisters conservation land and to authorize the Town Administrator to sign any necessary documents.
Motioned: Councilor Ploski
Seconded: Vice-Chairman Carr
Chairman Glennon asked what the acreage is that is being purchased.
Administrator Wojnowski answered the property is 115.67 acres located both in Newmarket and in Durham. This purchase is separate from the house and five acres.
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Chairman Glennon noted the discussion on the house and five acres would be at the December Workshop.
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
3. Discussion on Best Way Disposal Contract Extension
Administrator Wojnowski noted the individual who had been hurt has been home for approximately two weeks with a broken leg and a bump on his head. A representative from Best Way has indicated this individual is recovering.
Councilor Ploski noted on his way to work this morning on Route 152, there had been a Best Way truck stopped at the top of a hill in the middle of the road. There was no way to get around the truck due to site distance. Both attendants were outside of the truck. He felt this was a safety issue and should be brought to Best Way’s attention.
Administrator Wojnowski stated he would bring that to their attention and suggested if the Council chose to extend the contract new language be included to restrict activity from the left side of the road. The Best Way truck would continue down the road, collect from the right side of the road, turn around and then continue to collect from the other side of the road. This may help to cut down safety hazards. The three year contract with Best Way ends December 2009. Best Way is looking to institute a new recycling program called Single Stream Recycling. With this new program, residents would not be required to separate their recyclables. There would be trucks that would come pick the recyclables up, bring them to Waste Management and other places to unload and separate the materials. It is more efficient for Best Buy, but also more convenient for residents. If the Town recycles more the cost is $7.00 less per ton for turn-key waste. If the Town agrees to extend the contract, it would be extended for three years beyond the current expiration date. He discussed how the price of diesel fuel relates to surcharges. Yearly increases would be tied to the CPI. This would be a cooperative contract with Newfields and Stratham. Both Newfields and Stratham are in agreement with the new contract with the exception of the surcharge for diesel fuel, which is still under discussion.
Councilor Bergeron asked if Best Way could offer a program for yearly clean-up where every resident could participate. He noted pick-up was for elderly residents only now. He asked if that could be changed to allow every resident to participate again.
Public Works Director Rick Malasky explained it had been too difficult to police the program and very expensive.
Councilor LaBranche appreciated the new program and the potential benefits it would have including reduced tipping fees. He was concerned with extending this contract for another three years without going out to bid.
Councilor Kwaks asked for a list of items accepted, not accepted and the fees for the Town dump.
Public Works Director Rick Malasky noted all that information is available on the website.
Councilor Bergeron noted many dumps he has been to over the years have had a swap shop. He asked if that has been considered.
Public Works Director Rick Malasky noted there is an area near the fence, although not advertised, for such items.
Councilor Bergeron agreed there should be a bid process.
Councilor Ploski noted he had sat in during several meetings when this contract had been authorized. At that time both Newfields and Stratham had felt confident with the level of service for the fees paid. He noted the Council has renewed contracts without going out to bid.
Councilor LaBranche stated he could not support a three year extension without a bid process.
Chairman Glennon agreed with Councilor LaBranche about the bid process but added that he understood the benefits of renewing the contract at this point. He suggested working with Newfields and Stratham would help to keep costs down.
Administrator Wojnowski stated the discussions are in the beginning process. He would bring the Council’s concerns to the discussion tomorrow for further discussion.
Motion: To table this discussion until there is further information.
Motioned: Councilor LaBranche
Seconded: Councilor Ploski
Public Works Director Rick Malasky noted Newmarket runs off a fiscal year; he suggested changing the expiration date to coincide with the end of a fiscal year for budgeting purposes.
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
4. Employee Christmas Party
Chairman Glennon explained the Town Council had approved spending up to $2500 last year for the Employee Christmas Party, which was held at recreation department. The party was catered locally. Employees this year have indicated they would prefer department parties and would like to go home at noon on Christmas Eve. He suggested food platters be brought into each department mid-morning so employees can leave at noon.
Councilor Kwaks suggested determining how many employees are in each department in order to allocate funds for food.
Chairman Glennon suggested Administrator Wojnowski and staff can allocate the funds appropriately.
Councilor Ploski suggested providing each employee with a turkey rather than a party. He asked if the party would begin after noon so each employee would have the opportunity to go home or stay for the party.
Motion: To authorize the expenditure of up to $2500 for Town employees to use for their holiday party and to authorize Town employees to utilize half a day off with pay on Christmas Eve.
Motioned: Councilor Minutelli
Seconded: Vice-Chairman Carr
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
5. Old Business
Councilor LaBranche referenced the Mission Statement he would like to be included in the CIP.
Motion: To accept the Mission Statement as Town Policy Goals and Objectives amending item #3 by adding the word union before contract.
Motioned: Councilor Ploski
Seconded: Councilor Bergeron
Vote: 7-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Aye
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Aye
Chairman Glennon Aye
Councilor Bergeron asked about the request from the senior center about tax relief.
Administrator Wojnowski noted he would be meeting with them January 3, 2009.
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
6. New Business/Correspondence
None.
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
7. Administrator’s Report
Administrator Wojnowski noted he did not have anything to report at this time.
> style="border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;"
