GraniteGrok

Memorandum to the Belknap County Attorney

SUBJECT: Commissioners Meeting of 13 May 2008

RE: “Vote on said supplemental appropriation”

FACTS regarding the events of 6 May 2008 Convention meeting:

1   Notice for a public hearing of the County Convention in order for the Belknap county commissioners to present their request for a supplemental appropriation to the 2008 calendar year budget, pursuant to RSA 24:14-(a)”

2   No notice was specifically posted or published that the commissioners would be joining the conventions meeting.

3   The Commissioner, at the Public Hearing withdrew their requested increase as noticed and announced it as “a request for a Supplemental “Reduction” rather than as noticed a supplemental “increase of appropriations”.

4   The convention to a vote to approve “the numbers”.

QUESTIONS:

I            Since the notice is for a “BELKNAP COUNTY CONVENTION, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE” , absent the Commissioners noticing its meeting, in order  to present a recommendation for a supplemental budget to the commissioner is the presentation they made negated by its violation of the Right-to-Know?

II         Is a public hearing required of the convention to “receive” the request of the commissioners for any budget or supplemental budget?

III       If your legal opinion is that it is a legal requirement that the presentation by the commissioners shall be done as part of a public hearing, which RSA is relied upon?

IV      Is the Convention required to hold a “public hearing” on any intent by resolution to adopt the annual or supplemental appropriation?  If so which RSA is applicable?

V         Belknap County’s Annual Budget Appropriation, the sum of all the individual estimated expenditures and revenues, has been adopted with the effect of law and it shall remain in effect until rescinded by a majority vote at a regular meeting of the appropriating authority.  Absent a vote to rescind, what RSA empowers the commissioners to propose a supplemental reduction?

VI      Absent an unanticipated new purpose, under what RSA can the convention approve a supplemental appropriation?

VII    Can the Convention adopt its supplemental appropriation as verbally presented on 6 May 2008, by an illegal quorum of the commissioners, absent a notice of a public hearing, citing the specific purpose(s), related amount(s) for the new appropriation encumbrances prior to the vote?

VIII   What law allows contemporaneous changes in unencumbered money to estimate over expenditures?

IX       Under what RSA is an exception to the public hearing requirement found which allows the convention to go around advanced notice of a new specific purpose by simply stating the convention will “entertain public input”?

WHEREAS, the default budget is in effect and encumbrances have been incurred, we do not believe the annual budget can be rescinded in part or in total.  We believe the only option at the disposal of the Commissioners is, with approval of the Conventions’ Executive Committee, the ability to transfer funds from line items that have met the intended purposed appropriation and now are unencumbered and therefore may be transferred to identified over expended line items requiring additional money without exceeding the grand total appropriation.

            Moreover, “changes” in estimated individual line item appropriation are not allowed.  Changes, such as zero funding one line item and creating a new line item in the form of a transfer are not acceptable.  If and when an account number is deleted and re-designated, the estimated appropriation cannot be altered.

            Clearly, the published supplemental budget notice is co-mingled with so-called changes which are in fact transfers without approval.  And those amounts are no longer valid based on the so-called “reduction supplemental appropriation” request as presented on 6 May 2008, at which you with all County Department heads observed.

We await a timely response to our question and concerns.

Tom Tardif, and

Doug Lambert