Town attorney: budget committee now calculates the default budget; members press for clearer transparency

PLAISTOW, N.H. — Town attorney Eric Ma told members of Plaistow’s select board and the invited budget committee at a July 13 workshop that a recent change in state law makes the budget committee responsible for calculating the municipality’s default budget and reviewed what municipal officials can and cannot do when reallocating appropriations.

"Now it is the budget committee that is responsible for calculating the default budget," Ma said, explaining that the calculation should be a "mechanical exercise" but that statutes still constrain transfers and special warrant articles.

Ma told the group that the select board may transfer money between line items so long as the transfers do not exceed the total appropriated bottom line and the funds remain within appropriated purposes. "So long as you got a buck in there, the select board have full on essentially unfettered discretion as to how they expend it," Ma said, while noting limitations on moving funds that had been appropriated by a special warrant article (for example, capital reserve funds).

Members pressed Ma about timing and transparency when budgets change after they have been presented to the budget committee. "One of the themes we keep hearing is bottom line dollars that money is being shifted here to there," a budget committee member said, asking how residents and the committee can track where money came from on late changes. Ma recommended asking for written justification for large adjustments and noted that the municipality must produce a comparative statement showing appropriations and expenditures at the end of the fiscal period.

The committee also asked about document formats and data access. A member asked whether the town could provide budgets in Excel instead of PDF to allow more meaningful review. Ma said nothing in law bars providing an Excel file, but cautioned that editable formats contain metadata that could be manipulated and that, under a right-to-know (RSA 91-A) request, draft-versus-final distinctions can arise. He also summarized the general 91-A response timeline: "5 business days to respond," with some exceptions, and noted recent statutory language allowing cost recovery for overly broad requests or per-message charges when requests involve an extremely large volume of communications.

Committee members asked whether individual committee members may contact department heads directly. Ma discouraged ad hoc contacts, saying they can create a "false perception" that an individual is acting on behalf of the whole body and recommended establishing a clear chain of communication in the committee's rules of procedure.

The select board and budget committee briefly voted to enter a nonpublic session under RSA 91-A for attorney–client privilege; cameras were turned off and the bodies later returned to public session. No final budget votes were taken in the public workshop. The chair said the completed document will be distributed to committee members for review once it is available.

The discussion clarified legal boundaries for transfers, public-records production, and member conduct but left procedural choices — such as whether the committee will adopt internal rules requiring justifications for proposed percentage cuts — to the local bodies to decide. The town’s lawyer referenced RSA chapters 32 and 33-a and Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) filing requirements during the presentation.

The workshop adjourned after members thanked Ma and asked staff to circulate follow-up materials.