Carroll County commissioners approve letter to delegation, vote to review sealed minutes; cameras proposal introduced

Carroll County commissioners on March 14 voted to send a letter to the county delegation about its treatment of county employees and approved a motion to review and begin releasing sealed nonpublic minutes going back 10 years. Commissioners also introduced — but did not record a final vote on — a proposal to add surveillance cameras inside the commissioners' office after staff said boxes were removed from a former commissioner's desk.

The votes came during the meeting's new-business segment. The motion to send a letter to the county delegation was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners then debated and approved a separate motion to review sealed minutes from the last 10 years and to begin releasing them, with the board agreeing on a 10-year review window.

The camera proposal was discussed after a commissioner reported that in January a then-current county commissioner entered the office and removed four boxes and cleared a desk. That episode prompted concern about what, if any, records were removed and whether the commission's office had adequate security. A motion to install surveillance cameras in the commissioners' office was made and seconded; the transcript records discussion about existing badge access, locked filing cabinets and record-retention obligations but does not record a final roll-call or recorded vote on the cameras during the public session.

Commissioners also used language invoking the state public-records and meeting statute before entering a nonpublic session later in the meeting. The board cited New Hampshire RSA 91-A:3 (multiple subsections) when they moved into nonpublic session to discuss “public employee dismissal, promotion, compensation,” hiring, reputation of persons and pending or threatened litigation.

During the discussion, commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about the county clerk's attendance. Speakers noted the clerk had not attended meetings since the previous year and discussed the commission’s need for clarity about the clerk’s intention to participate in meetings. Board members said they were reaching out to the clerk for clarification and emphasized the commission must continue operating with its current membership in the interim.

Next steps recorded on the public record: the letter to the county delegation will be sent; staff and the commission will begin the work to review sealed nonpublic minutes for potential release over the 10-year window; and the surveillance-camera proposal will return for further discussion, follow-up on technical and legal constraints and a formal vote, if the board chooses to schedule one.

The board moved into and later returned from a nonpublic session; minutes for that nonpublic session were sealed as permitted under RSA 91-A.