2025 Town Deliberative Session
Citizen ejected from the meeting. One warrant article declared illegal. Several warrant articles amended.
At the town deliberative session citizens can amend and debate the warrant articles that will be on the ballot in the upcoming election on March 11. At Nottingham’s February 1 deliberative session, there was plenty of activity in this regard.
The session lasted 3.5 hours and was broadcast on channel 22 and YouTube live. Unfortunately, there were problems with the audio-visual equipment at several points during the session, causing part of the proceedings to be neither broadcast nor recorded.
Your Vote Counts
At the beginning of the meeting I counted 44 voters in the room. Many people who have previously attended deliberative sessions know that not much happens in the first half hour or so, or they cared about only a particular warrant article to be discussed later in the meeting. So, they time their attendance to arrive sometime after the session begins. The Supervisor of the Checklist said that over 80 voters ultimately showed up. In the November 2024 general election, 3,706 Nottingham voters voted.
As a demonstration of how much your vote matters, one of the amendments voted on ended up as a 31 to 31 tie - meaning it failed to pass. This was for a $25k increase to the town’s operating with an (advisory) purpose of increasing funding for the Recreation Department.
Conflict with the Moderator
At two points during the deliberative session a citizen got into an argument with the Moderator on the grounds that the Moderator was illegally limiting the citizen’s speech on the grounds that the Moderator was prohibiting them from addressing individuals other than the Moderator. The citizen warned the Moderator that the Moderator’s actions were putting the town at risk of a lawsuit. The citizen had come prepared for such an event, as they cited specific legal cases they believed supported their position. The Moderator held firm, accused the citizen of being disruptive, and threatened them with ejection from the meeting. Ultimately the citizen chose to be ejected.
While this citizen has in past deliberative sessions been in conflict with the Moderator, recent events led to this specific confrontation. A similar situation had occurred with the citizen at the January 14 public hearing on the town budget, about which the citizen formally complained to the town. The details of this will be the subject of an upcoming article for the Nottingham Blog.
Warrant Article #19 Declared Illegal and Unenforceable
The town’s legal counsel advised the town that Warrant Article #19, to temporarily raise the tax cap from 4% to 6% for just two years was illegal and unenforceable. The warrant article must go on the ballot, but the attorney said the vote on it should have no effect.
Upton & Hatfield provided a letter to the town explaining their rationale.
This article seeks to have the Town approve a temporary tax cap for the next two years.
RSA 32:5-c, V provides that if a tax cap is approved by Town voters, it applies beginning with the next fiscal year and “for all subsequent years until it is rescinded as provided in paragraph VI.” RSA 32:5-c, VI then provides the mandatory language for rescinding a tax cap. RSA 32:5-c only permits a municipality to either adopt a tax cap or rescind a tax cap. There is no authority for the Town to adopt a temporary tax cap.
Should the Town wish to change the tax cap in a future year, the Town should include an article to rescind the 4% tax cap currently in place, using the language in RSA 32:5-c, VI, and then adopt a new tax cap of 6%, using the language of RSA 32:5-c, IV. The 6% tax cap would remain in place until rescinded.
Amendments to Warrant Articles
An amendment to Warrant Article #15 passed 41 to 26. This warrant article would grant the Board of Selectmen authority to expend money from the Highway Truck Capital Reserve Fund. Presently, the voters reserve that authority for themselves. The amendment stipulates that the Board of Selectmen must declare that there is an emergency in order to exercise authority to expend funds.
There was lots of debate about the two warrant articles involving spending on Pawtuckaway Lake. One of these, Warrant Article #18, was amended to make clear that the Pawtuckaway Lake Improvement Association had accepted responsibility for covering interest payments on the bond.
There was a failed effort to remove Stevens Hill Road from the list of roads proposed for reconstruction in Warrant Article #12, submitted by the Board of Selectmen. Reconstruction for Stevens Hill Road is also proposed in Warrant Article #22, submitted by citizen petition.
Watch the video:
School Deliberative Session
The school deliberative session will be this Wednesday, February 5, at 6:00 pm at the Nottingham School.
I don't understand why you refer to a citizen being ejected from the meeting and seem to take pains to avoid using their name. There's no confidentiality issue; the person has to state their name and address prior to speaking at this public meeting and it will be recorded in the minutes. Based on prior meetings I've attended, I think I can guess about whom you're speaking, but for those who may not have that experience, or who couldn't hear if they were watching the poor quality video, why don't you just name the person?
Could you please clarify your comment about Stevens Hill Rd warrant? They way I read it is that there was an effort to remove SHR from a warrant. While technically correct, I fear your readers will get the wrong impression if they weren't at the meeting.