Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Claims topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Former planning-board volunteer Jim Hewitt renews demand for $28,000 legal-fee repayment after being cleared

2086358 · January 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During public comment, Jim Hewitt said he spent more than $28,000 to defend himself against malfeasance charges he called "patently false," said Primex denied coverage and asked the council to authorize reimbursement.

Jim Hewitt, a former volunteer planning board member, used public comment time at the Jan. 6 council meeting to ask the Portsmouth City Council to reimburse more than $28,000 he said he spent on legal fees to defend himself after malfeasance charges he called false. Hewitt said the council previously voted to find him innocent and told councilors the city’s insurer, Primex, issued a denial of coverage in November after a six-month review.

"For us, it goes on. The wound remains open. The torment continues," Hewitt said. He said he had "no choice but to spend over $28,000 to prove" his innocence and asked the council again, for the fourth consecutive meeting, "Will Portsmouth give us our $28,000 back? Yes or no?"

Hewitt described the matter as administrative rather than legal and requested council authorization to reimburse his fees. The transcript records his request in public comment; the council did not announce an immediate vote or decision on reimbursement during the meeting.

Context and next steps

Hewitt said Primex issued a denial in November and that the council had previously voted to find him innocent after hearings in mid-February of the prior year. He told the council the denial by the insurer left him seeking direct council authorization for reimbursement. Councilors did not take a vote on the request at the Jan. 6 meeting; the record shows public commenters later urged the council to address the matter, and the issue may be placed on a future agenda for formal council consideration.