In my post a couple of days ago (“Laconia State Rep Gregg Hough: With All His Other Political Enemies, He’s Decided to Anger GraniteGrok, too?“), I presented his allegations to the Belknap County Republican Committee as to why its Executive Committee (e.g., Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, Secretary (who was absent from the hearing), and At-Large member) should no longer allow GraniteGrok to be present as the lone media representative at its meetings.
Even as GraniteGrok is at least as Conservatarian as anyone else that attends, and in a number of cases, quite a bit MORE so.
So anyways, having been notified of his document and their willingness to honor Due Process, I was sent Hough’s document against which I could mount a defense of both myself and GraniteGrok. Again, while I thought it was to be a three-party process (Hough, myself, and the BCRC-EC), I learned that he had forwarded HIS document to the entire delegation (more on that later).
So, I am going to share what I wrote. FAR longer than his as he just “threw crap against the wall in hopes it would stick”, my defense went more on a point-by-point basis. And yes, I will admit, throwing in a bit of snark in return. Yes, I could not help myself even if this was a bit of a “legal” type document but I think that it was needed to make additional points to show what should have remained to be a private spat between a private person/constituent and his elected representative. Unfortunately, at this point – and he obviously will not be getting my vote – he went public, and so shall I.
I guess he hasn’t inculcated the phrases “Be careful of what you wish for” and “Don’t pick a fight with a guy that buys his pixel at a fixed price per month”. Throw in the Law of Unintended Consequences and he’s earned the Trifecta of bad mistakes.
So, here it is. Now, the original intent was to just read this entire document to the BCRC-EC but it became clear while the BCRC-EC members were grilling questioning him, a lot of what I had written became “old ground” so I passed over it (I had emailed it to the Chair earlier and was told each would be reading it afterwards) so I “ad hoc’d” it and read some but not all. But now Hough gets to read it all – if he wants. And yes, it is lightly edited from the original version as I “ad libbed” a bit so I added some back in.
Yes, it is long – 8 pages of my rebuttal and a couple of pages outlining the relevant parts of RSA 91A and RSA 24 that Hough decided to ignore in declaring for, helping to structure, assisting in running, and voting in, the illegal meeting of the Belknap County Delegation – the root cause of this whole thing in which he didn’t like getting called out over.
Good afternoon.
Isn’t this a sordid affair – no, not for me but for the NH Government’s Agent, NH State Rep Gregg Hough. And yes, I am recording this Due Process session of the Belknap County Republican Committee Executive Committee (“BCRC-EC”) as there is a real probability that Rep. Hough is going to end up in a legal proceeding – I have already retained legal counsel. Thus, for both his protection and mine, cameras are rolling.
My defense here before the BCRC-EC will be in three parts. First is with the Executive Committee, the second is in interrogating Rep. Hough as to his insipid and shamefully hollow allegations in his accusation brought before the BCRC-EC concerning me and GraniteGrok, and then thirdly, returning to the BCRC-EC.
Addition after the hearing: The post that has NH State Rep Gregg Hough so twisted: On Keeping One’s Word – Or Not. Not Cool to Lie to a New Constituent, Gregg Hough (Laconia Ward Two)!
Phase I: BCRC – EC
Madam Secretary:
- Is Rep Hough only a General member of the BCRC or a full-fledged member of the NH GOP State Committee (and thus held to a higher standard than a General member)?
- What has the attendance record been of Rep. Hough since this Executive Committee has been formed?
- If you don’t have a numeric count, could you categorize it as excellent, mostly present, fair, poor, or almost non-existent? My recollection is, at best, over the last two years, he has only attended three or four with two of them being these last two meetings and most likely driven by his part stemming from this Delegation/GAC fracas stirred up by the rogue Gunstock Area Commissioners.
- In the same manner, although I freely admit that I rarely sign in but that my cameras have always been present (excepting two meetings), how would you categorize my attendance at BCRC meetings since the current members of the BCRC-EC were elected, in contrast to Rep Hough?
Mister Treasurer:
- Can it be said that I have attended more fundraising events of the BCRC than Rep Hough?
- Have I contributed more, financially, to the BCRC than Rep Hough, through these fundraising events?
To the Executive Board as a whole:
- In my time in dealing with you as a Committee, have you ever known me/GraniteGrok to violate any Article of the US or NH Constitution?
- What NH State Laws have I/GraniteGrok broken since my restarting on the reporting of the BCRC meetings and activities?
- What NH GOP Platform Planks have I/GraniteGrok violated since this Committee assumed the reigns?
- What NH GOP By-Laws have I/GraniteGrok skirted since returning to the BCRC fold?
- What BCRC By-Laws have I/GraniteGrok ignored since recordings have been uploaded to the GraniteGrok website?
- The BCRC, even taking into account the history of myself/GraniteGrok going after anyone violating the NH/US Constitutional norms, NH GOP Platform, and HRA/NHLA scoring), invested its Trust that I would faithfully report the happenings of the BCRC wholly and without false representations when I asked about restarting such recordings or writing about BCRC meetings/events:
- Have I ever put up deceptively edited recordings (other than for “edited for time constraints” given that the Internet attention span is the equivalent of a gnat’s)?
- Have I ever, when asked, put up such recordings/written narratives that SHOULDN’T have been made public? Especially of those of BCRC meeting Speakers because of “sensitive” material?
- And most importantly, Have I ever violated that Trust placed both on and in me in correctly and nonprejudicial reporting on BCRC activities?
- Has GraniteGrok’s reporting on the BCRC added value to the BCRC?
Phase 2: Rep Gregg Hough
You are accusing me of several issues. Your remedy for these allegations is that you would have the BCRC stop my reporting on BCRC meetings. Is this correct (Yes or No)?
Let us walk through every one, shall we? I wish to understand your vapid positions on these. And if you are in horror of how your positions are being labeled, remember that I am a Private Citizen and you are a Government Agent by your actions and desire. Do you even understand why this point is so important?
And lest I forget, this question lurks – why are you even involving the BCRC-EC in what is a personal spat? Or have your political ambitions so blinded you?
Given the answers from the BCRC-EC, there is one word that describes your actions:
Chutzpah.
However, before delving into each of your allegations, let me remind you of your oath of office (NH Constitution, below), in part:
… agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire.
Would you agree?
Let’s also go to the root cause of this kerfuffle – that illegal meeting of the Delegation and your part of it. Contrast and compare the relevant portions of RSA 91A and RSA 24 in calling and having that meeting. Demonstrate, for us, that you are being faithful to the Laws you invoked in this regard.
Addition after the hearing – the relevant portions of both RSAs follow this defense document have been added at the end.
As to your allegations:
- Whereas: The Granite Grok [sic] has included me in an article or two concerning the delegation and the gunstock situation. While I have no problem with an opposing view/opinion being published I do have a problem when content is made up, and selectively edited to present a disingenuous fabrication to fit the Groks [sic] narratives.
You have provided no proof as to this allegation.
- Whereas: To put it bluntly the Granite Grok [sic] has elevated itself to the current definition of journalism.
You have provided no proof as to this allegation. As I have said for years and over countless posts – we are all political activists and report from that viewpoint. We do, however, participate in citizen journalism in which we do not opine, just put up the video as with the BCRC meetings.
Addition after the hearing – Said. No. Grokster. EVAH! I challenged Rep. Hough to find such amongst the over 47,000 posts on GraniteGrok. Heck, even Senator Elizabeth Warren had a1024th chance at being an American Indian – he’s got less chance than that in proving his allegation.
- Whereas: This has made me lose all confidence in their ability to speak truth to power and I now question all articles and how much is just made up.
“Speak Truth To Power” – why the adoption of such a Democrat/Progressive phrase, Representative Hough? Again, you present no “truth” to this allegation in the form of specific instances to support your allegation. In this, the previous two allegations and those that follow, YOU are the one “making stuff up” and expecting that others will believe you simply by dint of the Power of your Government Agent’s position of being an NH State Rep? Projection much?
Very slovenly thinking and reasoning, wouldn’t you agree? This is what I want in my elected representative?
Addition after the hearing – These allegations had me remember that old joke about consultants: “fly in, drop a load of crap, and fly away”.
Or was it just to easy (and lazy) adopting the technique that was used against Peter Ness and Dr. David Strang – make up an allegation:
THEY VIOLATED THEIR OATHS!!!! GET RID OF THEM!!!!
and then present NO proof at all that they did such things. Do YOU have any proof that they did? So why are you trying to use “The Big Lie” here?
In fact, we have a history at GraniteGrok of when we believe we are wrong, we state such AND we do so in a post that appears on our front page and not buried deeply like other media sources. And I have corrected multiple authors of posts when they have been in the wrong.
Whether you question things or not is your right but immaterial to your remedy you are seeking. Yours is but a personal opinion. A limp one.
- Whereas: This makes their presence not welcome as it is obvious that given provocation or the plain disposition of the Grok it can and will twist and fabricate as it sees fit.
By whom? Just you, Doug Lambert, Jade Wood, The rest of the “Lang Gang”? Because I pose a threat that must be dealt with? I see a relationship pattern developing here – and that you are now working to further sow dissension within the GAC, the Delegation, and Republicans in Belknap at large.
You DO realize that the new Commissioner that you voted for, Denise Conroy, wants you GONE, right?
Yes, that’s her sign (color version on GraniteGrok). The one you missed when you failed in your obligation as a member of the Delegation to properly vet the candidates simply because, in my humble opinion, you wanted to be “seen to be doing something” and do it fast. Just like the Citizens for Belknap PAC wanted.
Addition after the hearing – And why the Citizens for Belknap is now calling for your electoral defeat?
- Whereas: The Belknap County Republican Committee should be able to speak freely without the threat of retribution or publication of confidential and important political conversations, thus filming, or audio recordings, or both must not be allowed to continue as it disrupts the purpose of the gatherings.
You have provided no proof that this has happened. Name a specific instance where a video recording has been misused. I’ll say it again – you’re lying, again. Proof? Not once has the BCRC-EC accused me of such.
Addition after the hearing – And we’re back to 1/47,00 chance of proving it.
This has already been addressed (above) and at this time of meeting, most likely already answered and decided. Especially since it has already been determined that you haven’t bothered to show up much at all since the change in administration of the BCRC. Thus, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW what the purpose of the gatherings are?
- Whereas: There is simply NO reason for the Granite Groks [sic] presence at our meetings.
Addition after the hearing – you keep building that “Hough Jenga Tower” and then pulling out the first piece that causes your case to fail and fall immediately
Past history proves you wrong. If there was NO reason, why did the BCRC-EC allow GraniteGrok to start doing so in the beginning of their term? And allowed such video recording to continue? Again, only your personal opinion.
- Whereas: This request is not to disallow Republican people who work for or run the Grok to attend BCRC meetings as they have the right to attend as any other Republican in the County.
Well, isn’t that gratuitous of you? And rife with several problems. First, if you knew ANYTHING about GraniteGrok, you would know that no one WORKS for GraniteGrok, we all volunteer. We have no payroll so we have no employees – that’s what real NH political activists on the Right are – volunteers.
However, you leave a question dangling – are you stating, in your position of being a Government Agent, that while are you giving us leave to attend, like the aristocracy of old, BCRC meetings, are you meaning that you are using your position of Government Authority to not allow us our Freedom of Speech and ability to write about those meetings afterwards?
How would you have that enforced? Tell me, Rep. Hough – which RSA would you now torment that you would obviate the First Amendment and Articles 22 and 30 to disallow any GraniteGrok author from writing about a given meeting?
You DO know that a number of GraniteGrok authors attend BCRC meetings/events, right? Oh wait, you wouldn’t – you don’t show up.
I ask that you consider the afore mentioned [sic], as I for one will still attend when my availability allows, however if there is press there, I will not participate in my full capacity, nor do I believe other [sic] will, with the Granite Grok [sic] or any other press presence
Is that a threat or simply a statement of your past performance? And if the former (as the latter has already been proven), who do you think even cares?
Addition after the hearing – Lenin purportedly the creator of the phrase “useful idiot”. You now are a living, breathing example. You single handedly allowed that illegal meeting happen and YOU are upset that a constituent is bringing the hammer down on you for breaking the Law by saying that I’d work for your defeat? You helped in dividing the Delegation. Conservatives are looking at you sideways. Sununu called for you to be defeated. The Citizens for Belknap PAC, now that your usefulness is at an end, is actively campaigning to defeat you.
And now you’ve ticked off GraniteGrok with baseless allegations? Congratulations, welcome to your Participation Trophy.
Phase 3: BCRC – EC
- Given that Rep. Hough is my new Elected Representative by dint of redistricting, I have the Right, as a voter, to instruct my Representative in his actions in representing me,
- Given that Rep Hough is seeking, stupidly, to met out retribution against me calling him out in breaking the laws that govern public meetings called and held by public elected Representatives
- Given that Rep Hough is seeking, with great silliness, to met out retribution against me for calling him out in helping to conduct an illegal meeting of the Belknap County Delegation (e.g., County Convention),
- Given that Rep Hough is is seeking, with great rancor, retribution for calling him out as a liar after a conversation in which he told me that he would NOT to participate in such an illegal meeting of the County Convention,
- Given that I WARNED him that the meeting that he helped to form, structure, and in which decisions were made, would be ruled illegal,
- Given that I WARNED him that County Livernois put out faulty information in his absurd and toady Letter of Opinion by NOT listing the two most important clauses of RSA 91A and RSA 24 governing such meetings,
- Given that I WARNED him that in proceeding with that meeting, I would work against his re-election as I would never be able Trust him in the future for having broken the Law in which there are now two lawsuits filed against his actions in this matter,
- Given that he blatantly ignored GraniteGrok’s 17 year history of calling out RINOs and misbehaving Representatives, both Democrat and Republican for bad actions, deeds, and words, and that I would post up that conversation on GraniteGrok,
- Given that in participating with the formation of the structure of the meeting by:
- by ignoring my counsel that in this Dillon’s Rule State, only those actions explicitly specified in Law are permissible (and all others being illegal),
- being one of the members considering themselves to be the majority of the Delegation that was able to call a meeting using RSA24 but then doing a mashup with RSA 91A concerning legal noticing,
- by nominating Rep. Bean to be the “temporary Chair” of that meeting even though RSA 24 makes no mention of such a status for a County Convention,
- By allowing himself to nominated and then elected to be the “temporary Vice-Chair” of that meeting even though RSA 24 has no mention of such a status for a County Convention.
He has wantonly and with purpose, he showed a callousness toward the Law contra his Oath of Office.
Thus, I ask the following questions:
Isn’t this a matter in which a Government Agent, NH State Rep Gregg Hough, is asking the BCRC to met out a remedy for what is truthfully an action that is solely between a citizen and his Elected Representative outside the purview of the BCRC’s purposes and activities?
That he is purely adopting the tactics of that Democrat based PAC that has so roiled Republican politics in trying to silence, not only GraniteGrok, but also that of the BCRC in trying to get its messages out without undue editorializing that is often been done in the past by other media?
I ask that you consider and deliberate on those two question and the allegations that Rep Hough has brought forward today in the following light:
- He has willingly participated in an illegal Delegation meeting and thus has broken the Law willingly concerning the RSAs that govern such meetings,
- He is either consorting with or is at least politically aligned with (from a results standpoint) a Democrat run entity that is discrediting other Republicans within the Delegation,
- That he has fallen prey and being manipulated by said entity taking advantage of his “ambitious” future political plans for his own political gain,
- That he is a Government Agent trying to strip me and GraniteGrok of our US and NH Constitutional Rights (First Amendment, Articles 22 and 30),
- He has violated his Oath of Office as specified in the NH Constitution (Part Second – Form of Government, Oaths and Subscriptions Exclusion from Office, Etc.)
I, A.B. do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as …………………………………………., according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.
Summary:
- Given that the BCRC-EC has confirmed that this complaint, based on a private matter between two people, that allegations brought forward by Rep Hough, are totally outside the confines of the BCRC purpose and activities
- Given that the BCRC-EC has confirmed that I have broken no Law, violated no NH GOP By-Law, and have not rendered asunder any BCRC ByLaw, and have fully kept faith with Constitutional values
- Given that GraniteGrok has not engaged, either in the past or present, in any actions that has violated the trust in me or GraniteGrok for which the BCRC-EC has already confirmed,
Therefore, I ask for the following actions by the BCRC-EC:
- That these scurrilous allegations against GraniteGrok and me be forthwith tossed with all the scorn and opprobrium that they so richly deserves and that you can muster.
- That a formal recognition of this unwanted and unneeded attempt to bring the disgusting technique of the politics of personal destruction into the BCRC that we saw against Peter Ness AND against a sitting member BCRC-EC, Dr. David Strang, for their lawful conduct as members of the Gunstock Area Commissioners, be roundly, rightfully and publicly condemned.
- That a letter of censure be read to the General membership at the next BCRC general meeting for this attempt by a sitting member of the NH GOP State Committee to use the Executive Committee of the BCRC as a political cudgel similar to what Governor Sununu has done in his political retribution for being called out by this august Committee.
- And, that you laugh at him as he walks out the door for being the stupnagel he is for trying such a lame political stunt.
And know that I will be writing about him with peals of laughter over this supercilious attempt to co-opt the BCRC-EC in his vendetta as a Government Agent in trying to deny MY Freedom to Free Speech in writing/recording about any BCRC meeting/event that I wish to attend (being a registered Republican) as I am protected AGAINST him by both the NH and US Bill of Rights incorporated into both Constitutions.
In this, he is showing an abuse of Power and a careless disregard of responsibilities of his duty to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of this State (see Oath of Office, above).
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-mrg.htm
Section 91-A:2
91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public. –
I. For the purpose of this chapter, a “meeting” means the convening of a quorum of the membership of a public body, as defined in RSA 91-A:1-a, VI, or the majority of the members of such public body if the rules of that body define “quorum” as more than a majority of its members, whether in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner such that all participating members are able to communicate with each other contemporaneously, subject to the provisions set forth in RSA 91-A:2, III, for the purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter or matters over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. A chance, social, or other encounter not convened for the purpose of discussing or acting upon such matters shall not constitute a meeting if no decisions are made regarding such matters. “Meeting” shall also not include:
(a) Strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining;
(b) Consultation with legal counsel;
(c) A caucus consisting of elected members of a public body of the same political party who were elected on a partisan basis at a state general election or elected on a partisan basis by a town or city which has adopted a partisan ballot system pursuant to RSA 669:12 or RSA 44:2; or
(d) Circulation of draft documents which, when finalized, are intended only to formalize decisions previously made in a meeting; provided, that nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to alter or affect the application of any other section of RSA 91-A to such documents or related communications.
II. Subject to the provisions of RSA 91-A:3, all meetings, whether held in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner, shall be open to the public. Except for town meetings, school district meetings, and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings. Minutes of all such meetings, including nonpublic sessions, shall include the names of members, persons appearing before the public bodies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions. The names of the members who made or seconded each motion shall be recorded in the minutes. Subject to the provisions of RSA 91-A:3, minutes shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection not more than 5 business days after the meeting, except as provided in RSA 91-A:6, and shall be treated as permanent records of any public body, or any subordinate body thereof, without exception. Except in an emergency or when there is a meeting of a legislative committee, a notice of the time and place of each such meeting, including a nonpublic session, shall be posted in 2 appropriate places one of which may be the public body’s Internet website, if such exists, or shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town at least 24 hours, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, prior to such meetings.
An emergency shall mean a situation where immediate undelayed action is deemed to be imperative by the chairman or presiding officer of the public body, who shall post a notice of the time and place of such meeting as soon as practicable, and shall employ whatever further means are reasonably available to inform the public that a meeting is to be held.
The minutes of the meeting shall clearly spell out the need for the emergency meeting.
When a meeting of a legislative committee is held, publication made pursuant to the rules of the house of representatives or the senate, whichever rules are appropriate, shall be sufficient notice. If the charter of any city or town or guidelines or rules of order of any public body require a broader public access to official meetings and records than herein described, such charter provisions or guidelines or rules of order shall take precedence over the requirements of this chapter. For the purposes of this paragraph, a business day means the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding national and state holidays.
III. A public body may, but is not required to, allow one or more members of the body to participate in a meeting by electronic or other means of communication for the benefit of the public and the governing body, subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(a) A member of the public body may participate in a meeting other than by attendance in person at the location of the meeting only when such attendance is not reasonably practical. Any reason that such attendance is not reasonably practical shall be stated in the minutes of the meeting.
(b) Except in an emergency, a quorum of the public body shall be physically present at the location specified in the meeting notice as the location of the meeting. For purposes of this subparagraph, an “emergency” means that immediate action is imperative and the physical presence of a quorum is not reasonably practical within the period of time requiring action.
The determination that an emergency exists shall be made by the chairman or presiding officer of the public body, and the facts upon which that determination is based shall be included in the minutes of the meeting.
https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/II/24/24-mrg.htm
RSA 24
24:9-a First Meeting. –The chair of the county delegation shall set the time and place for the first meeting of the county convention to be held during the week of the second Wednesday of December of each even-numbered year and shall notify the clerk of the house of representatives prior to the first Wednesday of December. The time and place of the meeting shall be announced by the clerk of the house of representatives on the first Wednesday of December of each even-numbered year.
Section 24:9-c
24:9-c Further Meetings. –The chairperson of the convention or a majority of the members of the convention may, and the chairperson of the convention upon the written request of the county commissioners shall, call a further meeting or meetings of the county convention. On a day on which there is a meeting of the house of representatives such meetings may be held only in the city or town in which such meeting of the house of representatives is held. On days when there is no meeting of the house of representatives such meetings may be held at any place in the county.
Section 24:9-d
24:9-d Notice. – The clerk of the convention, or his or her designee, shall mail to each member of the convention a notice stating the time, place and purpose of further meetings at least 7 days before the day of the meeting and shall cause to be published a like notice at least 7 days before the day of the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Mailing such notice is not required during any session of the general court, if the notice is printed for 2 legislative days in the journal of the house of representatives.
