April 2022 Budget Committee Meetings

Turmoil over an election that did not happen

By passing a warrant article prohibiting the town’s Budget Committee from proposing a budget more than 4% higher than the previous year’s budget the town’s voters have put the Budget Committee into a serious bind. As inflation is about 8.5% (it’s higher by other methods of calculating inflation) and the town’s population has been growing lately at about 1% a year, this means that the Budget Committee in real terms must propose cuts to the town’s budget of around 5.5%. That’s a huge, painful cut.

Let’s follow the Budget Committee to see how they handle this difficult task.

The first substantive decision the Budget Committee made was in their April 14 meeting. In their prior meeting, on April 7, the Committee had to deal with the matter of a ballot error. A member of the committee had resigned at the end of the budgeting year, leaving an empty seat (the second resignation in just a few months). While everyone on the committee knew about this, somehow the folks responsible for drawing up the ballot didn’t. They put onto the ballot the usual 3 positions that are up for election every 3 years, and the one position from the earlier resignation for the remaining 1 year of that position’s 3-year term. There should have also been on the ballot a 2-year position for the remaining term of the second member who resigned. This was not on the ballot.

In the April 7 meeting, the committee discussed the history leading up to why the seat was not on the ballot, how it was discovered after the point at which it could be corrected, and the guidance they’d been given from the Secretary of State. This guidance was that there was nothing to do about the election error and that the committee should follow the RSA about empty seats: they should ask for volunteers and the committee should select a replacement member from among them. This is what the committee tried to do. It had three volunteers for this unpaid position. All were defeated candidates from the election the month before. The three volunteers each gave statements to the committee, followed by questions from the committee. After this, comments were taken from the public. There were about 25 attendees. Comments came on two subjects. Most of the comments were related to failure of the seat on the committee to be put on the ballot and whether it was legal for the committee to vote to fill this seat. Many of the comments were about the volunteers.

Given the concerns expressed by the public, the committee decided to get legal assurance that they were acting correctly given the situation. They decided to again contact the Secretary of State for assurance, and to delay action for a week.

The committee met again a week later. They discussed the assurances that the committee had received and concluded that the only thing that could be done was to appoint one of the three volunteers to fill the empty seat on the committee.

Tom Butkiewicz then moved that the committee should follow what he called “the will of the people.” As all three of the volunteers were losing candidates in the March election the committee should choose the one who got the most votes.

Michele King and John Decker voiced opposition to this proposal on the grounds that none of the candidates ran for the seat that was open. Tom Butkiewicz interrupted John Decker to object, “why would anyone vote for somebody for a 3-year term but not a 2-year term?”

Sandra Jones asked to end the discussion and vote on the motion. Tom Butkiewicz reiterated his motion and expounded on the reasons to approve it. Sandra Jones interrupted Tom Butkiewicz, “Tom, we get it.” Tom Butkiewicz continued, “we do not have the right to impose our will when we already asked the townspeople.”

COMMENTARY:  Tom Butkiewicz’s claims here are false. The three candidates ran in two different races. One candidate ran in a 4-person race for 3 seats, where each voter got 3 votes. The other two candidates ran in a 3-person race for 1 seat where each voter got 1 vote. The vote tallies are not comparable. Further, RSA 32:15.VII explicitly gives the budget committee the right to impose its will to fill a vacancy.

Thomas Leveille called for the question. The motion was defeated 5-4

·         For: Butkiewicz, M. Kelly, R. Kelly, Morrison

·         Against: King, Morin, Martin, Jones, Leveille

Thomas Leveille moved that the committee should vote to select a person to fill the seat. It was decided to do a roll-call vote. The committee chose Owen Friend-Gray 5-4. John Decker initially did not cast a vote. Tom Butkiewicz said that Decker needed to, because if Decker voted for Tweed then there would be a tie and then the results from the March election should be used to break that tie. John Decker replied that if that’s the issue, then he would vote for Own Friend-Gray. After Decker did so, Tom Butkiewicz said that Decker should abstain.

·         For Owen Friend-Gray: Jones, Martin, Morin, Leveille, King,

·         For Brent Tweed: Butkiewicz, M. Kelly, R. Kelly, Morrison

Tom Butkiewicz then raised concerns about the fact that this position wasn’t on the ballot. Michelle King pointed out to Tom Butkiewicz that this issue had already been thoroughly addressed.

Michelle King then congratulated Owen Friend-Gray. Tom Butkiewicz exclaimed, “so the guy who got 69 votes is being appointed over the person who had 544. You know this is like inviting a lawsuit to the town.” Michelle King said it was not. Tom Butkiewicz said, “you’re going against the will of the voters! The very obvious will of the voters!”

COMMENTARY: The claim that the committee’s action would invite a lawsuit seems exaggerated. While it may be true that the town’s failure to put the seat on the ballot might yet cause the town to be sued, the committee doesn’t seem to have had any role in this failure. The committee followed RSA 32:15.VII and the instructions of the Secretary of State in filling the seat. Given that the candidate Tom Butkiewicz was arguing for, Brent Tweed, has previously successfully sued the town and has an active lawsuit against the town, there may indeed be a lawsuit coming.

See the video: