Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectmen employment ban amended then defeated in secret ballot
Summary
A petition to bar selectmen from holding town employment was amended on the floor to extend the resignation window from 30 days to one year; the amendment passed but the full petition failed in a secret ballot (78 yes to 80 no). Supporters cited conflicts of interest; opponents warned of staffing and enforcement disruption.
Voters considered a petitioned ordinance under RSA 31:39‑a that would prohibit members of the board of selectmen from being town employees or contractors. The warrant initially required resignation within 30 days of the first selectmen’s meeting after town meeting. During floor debate, proponents said the change would remove conflicts of interest and preserve good governance; one petitioner said, “having somebody who's elected also working at the same time for the town does not follow good principles” and could create potential conflicts.
Opponents — including departmental leaders and several residents — argued the transition window was too short for continuity of ongoing enforcement cases and specialized duties. Resident speakers and department heads gave examples of lengthy court timetables and specialized knowledge in zoning enforcement and public works. After a motion and second, the meeting approved an amendment replacing the 30‑day requirement with a one‑year transition period. Town counsel explained that a one‑year transition would help unresolved enforcement matters proceed to resolution without immediate personnel disruption.
The article then went to a secret ballot. The moderator announced the result: the article failed, 78 yes to 80 no. The amendment therefore had passed on the floor but the petition as amended did not carry on the secret ballot. Meeting participants debated the balance between perceived conflicts and the operational needs of small municipal departments; several speakers suggested the issue may merit broader policy discussion across elected offices rather than a narrow change limited to selectmen.
Next steps noted at the meeting included continuing conversations between the board, legal counsel and the town’s voters about conflict‑of‑interest policy and whether a broader approach to elected‑official employment restrictions would be appropriate.
