“Rabble Rousers and Publicity Seekers”

That’s what the two plaintiff’s in the ongoing Belknap County Sheriff appointment/ Right-to-Know law debacle have been called in a anonymously-written and mailed warning letter received over the weekend. (It has been turned over to the Gilford PD, which has opened an active investigation.)

Photo of copied envelope and contents which included a clipped Laconia Daily Sun newspaper headline, with the our names underlined, and a hand-written note. (original mat’s. at GPD)

"Rabble- rousers and publicity seekers! Back (?) off!!

In addition to this piece of mail that could be considered threatening, a lot has happened regarding this matter since we last updated this story here on the ‘Grok. As reported in this prior posting, fresh on the heels of a stinging rebuke by the NH Supreme Court, the County Convention decided to throw caution to the wind and, instead of simply conducting an open "redo" of the process as created (and, subsequently followed with the open and transparent appointment of a new County Registrar), re-appointed the vacated occupant to the position with no discussion other than concerns over the money he wasn’t getting paid while not serving as sheriff. Wrote New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader) reporter Nancy West last Sunday,

Two citizens whose New Hampshire Supreme Court argument resulted in Belknap County Sheriff Craig Wiggin being taken off the job during Laconia Motorcycle Week say the Belknap County Convention ignored the high-court ruling by returning Wiggin to work last week.

Tom Tardif of Laconia and Douglas Lambert of Gilford, both Republican activists, plan to ask the Superior Court tomorrow to stay Wiggin’s appointment and ultimately to vacate the position — again — at least until the County Convention repeats the entire application process and publicly votes on the appointee.

The Supreme Court earlier vacated the position because lawmakers had appointed Wiggin by secret ballot during a public session, in violation of the state’s right-to-know law.

And indeed, last Monday we filed a motion to the Superior Court for Clarification, Stay, and Cost (see full text at end of this post).

It was immediately following our discussion with the Clerk of the Court that things got dicey. As reported in the Citizen newspaper,

Political activists Tom Tardif and Doug Lambert said that County Sheriff Craig Wiggin assailed the pair over their continued challenge to his appointment during a chance encounter in the Belknap County Courthouse Monday.

[snip]

While Tardif and Lambert have vehemently denied that their lawsuit is aimed at Wiggin personally, the sheriff believes otherwise, and shared his unhappiness over the ongoing challenge with the pair.

Upon leaving the Superior Court Clerk’s office on the second floor, Wiggin was standing at the top of the stairs leading to the first floor and the sole exit from the building. Wiggin, who has publicly expressed his frustration about having to take a week of unpaid vacation as a result of Tardif’s and Lambert’s last suit, suggested the pair were hunting for his head and not finding fault with the delegation, as the pair contends.

"We did not do this to him. The Delegation did this to him," said Tardif.

Following the exchange, Tardif returned to the clerk’s office and told Clerk Dana Zucker he believed the Sheriff was "threatening them," and expressed his frustration over not knowing what police agency to call to intervene. Meanwhile, Lambert remained in the hallway listening to Wiggin’s comments while three other bailiffs stood or sat in the vicinity.

"Their characterization of this as a confrontation is ludicrous," Wiggin said later in the day.

Citizen staff writer Bea Lewis witnessed the encounter through the glass wall that separates the hallway from the clerk’s office but could not hear what was said.

Both Tardif and Lambert appeared uncomfortable, however.

Can you believe this? The sheriff was quite adamant when he repeatedly asked me and Tom if we were going to pay his bills. (Click here for Laconia Daily Sun reporting of the events -pdf)

"Are you gonna pay my bills? Who’s gonna pay my bills. I have NO intention of taking another unpaid vacation."

This was what we had to deal with before we were able to get past the sheriff and his gathered posse. All we were doing was accessing the judicial system, as is the right of all citizens, and here we were, finding ourselves being verbally accosted by the highest law-enforcement officer in the county! 

Following the encounter, we went directly to the County Prosecutor’s office to recount the situation and ask him to conduct a criminal investigation. An affidavit describing the events has been prepared as well. The next day, July 1st, we submitted a written request to obtain and preserve a copy of the hallway video of the event. To the best of our knowledge, per James M. Carroll, Belknap County Attorney, arrangements have been made for the preservation of the Belknap County Superior Court’s security surveillance video recording of 30 June 2008.   Further, that disc has been delivered to and entered into the County Attorney’s securely locked “evidence locker.” 
 
That recording has become part of a criminal investigation and is being retained for law enforcement purposes. (Citing: Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 NH 574 (1978) and Murray v. NH Div. of State Police, 154 NH 579 (2006).  The “video” shall be kept locked into the county’s secure evidence locker for preservation.  That video shall be released only to the investigating authority.

Since the events of last week as described, we have now received the warning letter as discussed at the beginning of this post. While we have no idea (yet) who sent it, we do have a few persons in mind that could certainly agree with the "rabble-rousing publicity seeker" meme, as they have been pretty much saying the same things in several public venues as they seek to defend Sheriff Wiggin, mistakingly believing we have some "vendetta" against him. Such persons, much like Wiggin himself, seem to have missed the fact that our ongoing legal issues with the appointment matter are directed solely at the County Convention. We even went so far as to release a statement to the media last week noting, for the record,

We wish to make it perfectly clear that we have never included Mr. Wiggin in any legal action whatsoever, and, on 30 June, 2008, we did not seek out nor expect any confrontation at the Superior Court office, and it was in fact Mr. Wiggin, in full dress uniform, including his weapon, who started that when he told us that we have “made this personal.”

It’s too bad Mr. Wiggin didn’t stop to ponder that before committing acts that may very well have turned HIM into the focus of a criminal investigation that could end up being "official misconduct".

During the hallway confrontation, he told both of us, "Now you guys have made this personal." No, we did no such thing. Up until Wiggin confronted us in the halls of justice, he was an unfortunate and INNOCENT guy caught in the middle. Now, it is HIM that has involved himself personally in the matter. Not us…

=========================================================

Here is the latest brief, as we filed last Monday at Superior Court. While certainly Mr. Wiggin is a man caught in the middle, you can see by simply reading it that the CONVENTION is the object of the motion…

 

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

 

BELKNAP, SUPERIOR COURT                                        DOCKET No 07-E-0151, and
                                                                                                DOCKET No 07-E-0140

 

THOMAS A. TARDIF and DOUG LAMBERT
V.
BELKNAP COUNTY CONVENTION et al

 

 

PETITIONERS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, STAY and COST

 

            NOW COME the petitioners Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe and Doug Lambert, ProSe, in support of their motions for Clarification,  Stay, and Cost in the above entitled matters. In support thereof, the Petitioners say as follows:
            The Supreme Court
Opinion issued on 13 June 2008 Nos. 2007-566 and 2007-685 reversed and remanded this honorable Courts orders of 07-E-0151 and 07-E-0140 regarding (1) the failure of the Trial Court to invalidate the appointment of Craig Wiggin to the office of Belknap County sheriff; and (2) the trial court’s denial of the petitioners’ request for documents from the Convention’s chairperson and record keeper.
Accordingly, the appointment of Wiggin was invalidated and the all the records relating to the 2007 appointment were ordered to be accessible unless the respondents can substantiate redaction.  Clearly, irreparable harm has resulted.
Fact and Law.
1.)  The petitioners first challenged the non-public meetings followed by the paper ballot taken in public– all of which are violations of New Hampshire’s Right to Know RSA 91-A.

 

2) Following a hearing, the Court granted the petitioners’ motion on the paper ballot but asserted that the entire process could have been done in non-public session.

 

3) The petitioners, also per RSA 91-A, sought to review records regarding the appointment of the midterm Sheriff, but were denied access to all document described in the published minutes.

 

4)  The petitioners filed their second challenge relating to the appointment of the midterm Sheriff, which was summarily denied without a hearing.

 

3) The Petitioners appealed the Court’s order to the State Supreme Court regarding the hiring of an employee versus the appointment of a midterm elected official.

 

4)  The Petitioners also appealed the Court’s order to the State Supreme Court regarding the records pertaining to the appointment of the midterm Sheriff.
  
5)  The effect of the Supreme Court order on 13 June 2008, to “reverse” the appointment process established by the Convention that was implemented behind closed doors in illegal non-public sessions in filling the midterm vacancy of the constitutional elective office of Sheriff,  resulted in a new vacancy as of 13 June 2008 at midnight.

 

6.)    Moreover, the only difference between the vacancy of the office of sheriff in 2007 and the newly created vacancy of 13 June 2008 is that the vacancy came about by the resignation of the elected sheriff and the 2008 vacancy is do to violations of law.

 

7)  Clearly, it is well documented that the Belknap County Convention in 2007, with the vacancy of the Sheriff’s Office, established the procedures to be followed for the appointment of a constitutional officer. First, the vacancy is announced and allows candidates the opportunity to apply for consideration to fill the vacancy in the office. The Convention then interviews the applicants, asking a series of questions. This is followed by a reduction of potential appointees to two, with a public input period leading to the vote by the Convention to appoint the interim constitutional officer.  This very process was followed in the later appointment of a replacement Registrar of Deeds.
  What had been corrected in the original “appointment procedure” involving the Registrar of Deeds was openness.  The Convention conducted the entire process of selecting in full view, absent any secret non-public meetings.  The candidates were allowed to apply for the vacancy and the public was afforded the opportunity to know all of the candidates, contact their representatives and comment at a public hearing.  The public scrutinized the actions of its government officials.  The public had knowledge of the considerations upon which governmental actions were based, and of the decisions taken.

 

9)  To date of this filing, this Honorable Court has not scheduled a hearing regarding the documents originally sought for an in-camera review of the interview materials regarding any and all documents involved with the illegal appointment of sheriff Wiggin in 2007.

 

10)  No supportive affidavits, then or now, by any of the 2007 applicants documented that an invasion of privacy would take place if the documents requested became public.  On 24 June 2008, the Resumes that were considered private by the Convention apparently were summarily released at 3:00 PM by the County Attorney without the Convention’s knowledge or request for redaction by this Court, which gives rise to a frivolous objection to the original petition before this honorable Court. Which has in fact caused irreparable harm to the public’s right to compare all of the applicants, and the 2008 post-appointment process. (Exhibit #1 Letter from Carroll)

 

11)  On 24 June 2008 the petitioners reviewed letters of interest submitted by seven applicants for the 2007 vacancy in the office of sheriff.

 

12)  On 24 June 2008, the petitioners met with Attorney Jim Carroll at his office and informed him that the complete records originally sought were not released as indicated in his e-mailed letter.

 

13)  On 25 June 2008, the petitioners were notified by e-mail that the letters of recommendation would be available.  Accordingly, the petitioners reviewed packet #1, all the letters of recommendations apparently used in non-public meetings in 2007.  As no non-public meeting minutes exist, in violation of RSA 91-A: 3, III, the petitioners and the public continue to have no known facts or basis to determine the selection process used to pair down the original seven applicants to two.  The petitioners then reviewed Packet #2, letters of recommendation regarding the two final nominees for the public interviews.  The letters contained in Packet #2 were never made known or that they even existed. (Exhibit #2 email from Bovill)

 

 

14)  On 25 June 2008, the county delegation met at a duly noticed meeting at the Belknap County Complex.  That notice stated “The purpose of this meeting is the appointment of the Belknap County Sheriff”.  However, on its face the public believed this was the beginning of the process, as with the most recent vacancy of the Registrar of Deeds: to officially announce the vacancy of the office of sheriff and affirm the established procedure for appointing a constitutional officer.  

 

15)  On 25 June 2008, the County Delegation deliberated on the matters regarding the Supreme Court’s Order vacating the office of sheriff.  The discussion involved the process for filling the office of sheriff.

 

16) On 25 June 2008<
/span>, a motion was made to announce 1.) The vacancy. 2) Publicly interview applicants.  3)  After public is allowed to comments, the appointing authority would vote on the appointment.   All of which would be completed in a timely manner, a time line to be established by the county Attorney. That motioned failed.

 

16)  On 25 June 2008, only two members of all of Belknap County’s electorate had any knowledge that:
            a) The seven applications submitted to fill the unexpired office of Sheriff were open for public inspection.
            b) The letters of recommendation regarding the seven applicants were open for public inspection.
            c) A second set of letters of recommendation for the two finalists even existed.
            d) Non-public minutes do not exist to determine how the seven applications or letters of recommendation were used in pairing down the Seven to two for public interview.
           
17)  On 25 June 2008, the public had the right to know which applicants had the best or most skills such as, but not exclusively: Police experience, Administrative experience, Formal education, Training, Communication skill and how long they have been domiciled in Belknap County, to name a few items of consideration.   Of all the electorate of Belknap County, only two are known to have been apprised of the opportunity to review the only two records made available by the county attorney (Only 5 hours before the Convention was to meet).  The two were the petitioners.

 

18)  On 25 June 2008, the general population of Belknap County had no time to even read news accounts, seek an opportunity to review those records now available, and prior to any appointing action by its representatives or comment as to who or how the Convention should proceed in filling the vacancy.

 

19)  On 25 June 2008, the Convention failed to follow its own historical procedures to solicit any applications and specifically did not wish to notify the original seven applicants if they wished to re-apply.

 

20)  On 25 June 2008, the Convention voted absent even Mr. Wiggin’s application or any other applications, by simple majority vote and appointed Mr. Wiggin, founded on the sole legal opinion of its County Attorney, who did not cite any case history.

 

21) In the 13 June 2008, Supreme Court’s Opinion, it clearly cites Hussey, that “We agree that the government has an interest in receiving the largest possible pool of qualified applicants for public employment”.  The opinion goes on to state; “the public’s scrutiny of the chosen candidate will lose all effect unless it has other candidates to which to compare the one chosen”.

 

22)  Clearly, “the public has significant interest in information about the candidates who will fill the elected position”.  What is problematic for the Convention and the public is that; 1) the vacancy of the 2008 Office of sheriff is a new vacancy, not a re-appointment of the vacancy of 2007.  If that were to be construed, then the process would be instantaneously flawed by the fact that no “non-public minutes” are available for review, a violation of RSA 91-A.

 

23)  At the time of the 25 June 2008 Convention meeting, no known candidates applied for the vacancy of Sheriff, not one.  The public had and has a significant interest in knowing the candidates that were under consideration for the 2007 vacancy and accordingly, for the Convention to have what appears to have somehow reached a consensus to summarily re-appoint one of the seven 2007 applicants for the 2008 vacancy, without even allowing the remaining 6 to re-apply for the 2008 vacancy, much less allow the public sufficient time to review the original applications, strikes at the heart of a transparent government.  Moreover, with regards to the 2008 vacancy, in the absence of disclosure, members of the public were left in the dark and had no means of assessing the votes of their representatives.

 

24)  In the circumstances absent any discussion about qualification or even an expired application by Mr. Wiggin of over 12 months, the public once again is left in the dark as to how or why the representatives came to a final decision, other than substituting arrogance and disdain for the Supreme Court’s Opinion, and removing any transparency of the appointment process.  A simple public debate about the unfortunate situation the Convention itself caused, and the loss of income of former sheriff Wiggin, is not a debate on qualifications.

 

            WHEREFORE, the Petitioners request that this Honorable Court order:

 

A)  Stay, by a judicial order, any action by the Convention to fill the 2008 vacancy of the Sheriff’s Office, and order the Convention to comply with the original process used in 2007, or until such time as this honorable Court clarifies the Supreme Court procedural intent in reversing the appointment and records issues regarding the public’s right to an opportunity to evaluate the candidate(s) and determine which candidate they believe is best qualified to perform the duties of the office.  See City of Kenai, 642 P.2d at 1324.  Or, the Supreme Court re-gains Jurisdiction in the appointment of constitutional officers, specifically the matter before the Court regarding the Sheriff and determines:

 

1.  It is the intent of the Court that the original “procedural process” cited in the Convention minutes implemented in 2007, and subsequent appointment of Registrar of Deeds to: declare and advertise a constitutional office vacancy exists, solicit applicants, publicly deliberate, accept constituent input and then appoint.
2. Or, simply, that the appointing body may couch all information of any potential applicants, ignore all of the 2007 applicants and summarily nominate “Mr. Wiggin”, absent not one application or interview for the 2008 vacancy, then vote with no public input.
B)  Vacate the 25 June 2008 new appoint of the Sheriff, and
C)  In the event this Honorable Court does not grant the petitioners cost or stay, schedule a hearing
for oral argument, and

 

D)  Order that all of the Defendants comply with New Hampshire’s Right-to-know law,  RSA 91-A.    

 

E) Grant the Petitioners’ request for all out of pocket expenses incurred by them to act as prosecutors regarding these matters compounded by the bad faith, frivolous objection/denial for any requests to review all documents relating to the appointment of a constitutional officer, founded on sensitive information that clearly did not exist by virtue that no request for redaction, of any record, by this Honorable Court was ask for by the Defendants.

 

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                            _______________________
                                                            Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe
                                                            Laconia, NH. 

 

 

                                                            ______________________-
                                                            Doug Lambert, ProSe

                                                            Gilford, NH