Was the Speaker of the House Complicit in Covering Up Former Representative Bartlett’s Hatch Act Violation?
Amid concerns that the Speaker of the House delayed investigating former Representative Troy Merner (R - Lancaster) who concealed that he had moved out of his district making him no longer eligible to hold his seat, Boston Globe Reporter Steven Porter raised questions on December 6 about when the Speaker learned of former Representative Bartlett’s Hatch Act violation. As the Republicans had a narrow majority at the start of the legislative session, the party needed all the votes it could muster.
Bartlett officially resigned due to health reasons, as given in his resignation letter, below.
Former Representative Bartlett currently serves as a Selectman in Nottingham - a non-partisan position not subject to Hatch Act restrictions. So far his 2023 attendance at Board of Selectmen meetings he has been absent: Feb 27, March 28, May 15, July 17, Sept. 18, Oct. 11, and late: Jan 3, Jan 16, July 26
Although Bartlett officially gave health reasons as the cause for his resignation, an anonymous tip mailed to the Nottingham Blog two days before Bartlett’s resignation said he was going to have to resign because his employment with the Bedford, MA Veterans Administration office put him in violation of the Hatch Act, a claim later substantiated in a statement from the US Office of Special Counsel, which said that the resignation was due to the OSC’s enforcement efforts.
The big questions are who knew what and when?
It would appear that the OSC was likely to have known early on about Bartlett’s Hatch Act violation, as Bartlett voted only for the House’s first roll call, missing the subsequent 134 roll call votes until his resignation, leaving Nottingham and Northwood unrepresented.
Although the OSC does not disclose its methods of enforcing the Hatch Act, it’s easy to imagine a simple and effective system for this. NH state representatives receive a token salary. To collect this salary they must submit W-9 forms with their social security numbers. A file of these social security numbers could be routinely submitted to the OSC, which could match them against a file of the social security numbers for federal employees. This is easy enough to do on 1960s-era computer punchcards. If such a system were in place, the OSC would likely have known about Bartlett’s Hatch Act violation shortly after the first session of the legislature.
This raises the question of what the OSC’s next steps were. Did the OSC contact the Speaker? When did the OSC contact Bartlett? So far the OSC has said nothing. The OSC declined the Boston Globe’s request for a copy of its settlement with Bartlett.
The office of the Speaker has so far failed to respond to the Globe’s questions about when the office learned of the Hatch Act violation or when Speaker Packard learned of it. Nor has the Speaker’s office responded to questions about any actions the office took in response to Bartlett’s Hatch Act violation, and specifically any actions about encouraging Bartlett to resign.
Somehow, however, somebody knew about it at least two days before Bartlett resigned. The anonymous tip was postmarked on April 24, two days before Bartlett’s resignation, and refers to Bartlett as “our state rep for Nottingham/Northwood.” Perhaps the anonymous tipster might have answers to the Boston Globe’s questions. My contact at the Globe is soliciting tips on these questions. I will forward anything I learn.
Meanwhile, former Representative Merner has been arrested and charged with one class B felony count of wrongful voting, and misdemeanor charges of theft by deception, unsworn falsification, and tampering with public records. Merner will be arraigned on December 28 in Coos County Superior Court.
Charges have not been brought against former Representative Bartlett. Giving false statements under oath - Bartlett’s Declaration of Candidacy included an affidavit swearing that he was not a federal employee - constitutes perjury. Perjury is a class-B felony in NH punishable by up to 20 years in prison and loss of the right to hold public office. Perjury also can be subject to civil damages if the plaintiff can prove material damages. Typically such damages are difficult to prove; however, the taxpayers of Nottingham and Northwood had to pay for two special elections as a consequence of Bartlett’s resignation. If that resignation was caused by perjury on the Declaration of Candidacy affidavit, then Bartlett is potentially liable for the costs of the special elections.