The last video of that meeting (prior ones here and here). The last one, during the second Public Comment session was when Cindy Creteau-Miller, ally of Commissioner Gary Kiadaisch (who, based on my reading of the unredacted legal bills) seemingly spent $110,000 of Gunstock’s money on legal bills on political witchhunts against perceived political opponents and propping his supporters) that uttered: “AND REMEMBER NOVEMBER…you can vote“. This plainly ripped the shroud from in front of that “elephant in the room and I called her out/THANKED her for [inadvertantly] saying the quiet part out loud (she’s now running as a Republican from Meredith for the NH House in an attempt to slide the balance of the Belknap County Delegation from being pro-“Follow The Law” to being pro-“Kiedasich by any means”.
With the new makeup of the GAC, a couple of legal reviews were initiated (see above) and why legal proceedings were launched by either one or two Commissioners (even as the ByLaws state that a majority of the FIVE Commissioners was required) as well as why the previous makeup of the GAC decided to sue the Delegation over the possible removal of one or more Commissioners by the Delegation EVEN AS the former Chair (Gallagher) was ineligible to be on the GAC as he sold his Belknap County home (but continued to “squat” in his GAC seat for months) and Commissioner Rusty McLear didn’t go away after his interim term expired (but also continued to “squat” in his GAC seat for months).
At that meeting, the last item on the Agenda was supposed to be a non-public meeting under the auspices of NH RSA 91-A with the reason being, NH RSA 91-A:3:
(c) Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting. This exemption shall extend to any application for assistance or tax abatement or waiver of a fee, fine, or other levy, if based on inability to pay or poverty of the applicant.
(l) Consideration of legal advice provided by legal counsel, either in writing or orally, to one or more members of the public body, even where legal counsel is not present.
What was the topic was legal counsel for the GAC wanting the private contact information of current and past Gunstock Mountain Resort employees in further peering into what has transpired in this brouhaha between the Kiedaisch wing of the GAC (of which he is now the only one remaining) and the others GAC members AND the Belknap Delegation.
Knowing he was going to be the “object” of the non-public, GMR President Tom Day invoked the “unless such person request an open meeting” which was his right. And I’ll be honest, he was right, IMHO in offering immediate access to their official Gunstock emails and phone number but refusing to hand out personal/private emails for such a review. Of course, IF this goes to litigation, that is a different story.
While the GAC was right in asking, he was right in making it public. No, the question as to “why does legal contact want to talk to these people?” was asked but correctly avoided, making it a bit of a stalemate in the beginning but coming to a bit of a consensus by the end of the meeting. But it is clear that the animosity is still political in nature.
