Interesting and the phrase from my previous post kept coming back: “It’s Not a Flattering One”. To recap from the Daily Sun article (emphasis mine):
“We serve at the will of the sheriff. He doesn’t have to explain anything to us. We got discharge letters served to us by a deputy, which I guess is required, but he didn’t even speak to us,” Grenier said. Grenier also categorized the hiring of three of Wright’s political supporters, Rich Mann, Jim McIntyre, and Rep. Doug Trottier (R-Belmont), as a political “quid pro quo.”
Recently, McIntyre was promoted to chief deputy, and Trottier to sergeant. As a state representative, Trottier sits on the Belknap County Delegation, and recently brought HB 357, which would double the term of office for Belknap County attorney, register of deeds, treasurer and sheriff. Rep. Travis O’Hara (R-Belmont) recently applied for a position as a dispatcher, but did not get the job.
This was a “work-alike” to a similar bill that was passed last year to boost the same positions there for Rockingham County from two to four years. I don’t have any really good ideas as to WHY that should be but certainly one why not:
Two years may be short enough to get rid of bad people in an office. Four years may be WAY too long. And NH doesn’t have a recall mechanism for any office. So, we’d be stuck with someone longer than necessary.
Now the bill was “laid on the table” (think: “died”) so it isn’t going to happen and I should just let it go. However, given the Reps involved (NH State Reps Trottier (R), Juliet Harvey-Bolia (R), Mike Bordes (R), and Steven Bogert (R) ) as Sponsors, I wanted to watch the testimony and listen for myself as to why it got tabled – and heard at least two reasons why it shouldn’t have moved forward:
- If you can’t get your changes done because you might not get re-elected, that’s not a reason to have a 4-year term when every other office in NH is still two
- Weasel wording from those giving testimony in that if you didn’t know the back story, you’d think that the entire Delegation was behind the bill.
To that latter point, if you are short for time, wasn’t true. I know – I phoned.
Here’s the video of the NH House testimony on it. In order: NH State Rep Steve Bogert, Belknap County Sheriff Bill Wright, Kate Horgan of the NH Association of Counties, and then Bogert was recalled to answer more questions – which gave rise to this post.
Now, two things for context:
- NH State Rep Doug Trottier, Sgt in the Sheriff’s dept, was the Prime Sponsor. However, he was absent and Rep. Steven Bogert took his place.
- It was said by the Rep on the Municipal and County Government Committee, who was hearing the bill, that the Delegation had to support the bill.
So listen closely yourself and think “what’s missing here?”. Note that I’ve started the video at the HB357 hearing time: 26:47. My takeaways/notes:
- I didn’t hear Bogert state that the Delegation was in favor of the bill the first time I listened to his FIRST testimony (several times, in fact). He DID, however, botch a number of other facts, though. Homework, much?
- It was Sheriff Wright who finally said (55:29) “Ultimately, the Representatives in my county decided to put forward this bill because they followed the recommendation in the committee last time around where the bill got separated…so the representatives in my county agreed it would be a good idea for us to put it in the legislation now.”
Weasel Words #1 The nuance/impression that was left hanging in my mind after he was done was that the Delegation had discussed the bill and were either unanimous in support or at least a majority of them supported it. Selective wording Hold this thought for a couple…
Backstory – the history is that the previous bill had been passed through committee but during the floor fight (debate) on the NH House floor (ALL the reps and not just the committee) made it clear that no bill like this would be for ALL counties all at once. Each County, like what Belknap was doing now and Rockingham last year, had to bring their own case forward AND do it with the support of its County Delegation (the Reps in each County). THIS committee made that point over and over again.
- He also stated that he needed the 4-year term because of all the changes he was making were upsetting people and changing the culture/status quo. A two-year term might make it impossible to get re-elected because they might have so incensed people thus not getting all the changes implemented (paraphrasing here – listen to the recording).
- I dryly note that none of the current County-wide officeholders showed up to support this (e.g., County Attorney, Treasurer, County Register of Deeds) bill. Being elected, they could have easily made the time to attend and testify.
- Weasel Words #2: Kate Horgan of the NH Association of Counties, at 1:06:42, said “We heard the Legislature loud and clear last year. It was said in floor debate that if you want this change for your county or counties, make sure you get the support of your Delegation and bring the bill in just for your County. This is what Belknap has done, they have the support of their delegation”. She also said that she would defer speaking of this support to the Sponsor (at 1:09:38, the question was specifically asked that I was waiting for):
“…sponsored by legislators from Belknap and in your testimony, you made the comment that Belknap County has support from their Delegation. Could you expound on that and clarify what exactly what you mean by that statement?
Hogan: It is my understanding, and I would defer to the sponsor, to confirm this but that their Delegation discussed this bill and supports this bill but I would defer to the Representative from Belknap County to confirm that.
Oopsies – caught red-handed. As a lobbyist, she made the required impression in trying to the Committee to believe that the bill had the requisite support. The “I would defer to” was the admission she was making it up (I think), trying to get out of a jam, and putting the onus on either Bogert (who was present) or Trottier (who wasn’t).
- And then the Chair brought Bogert back to the testimony stand for another question. The LAST question WAS the one I would have asked if I’d had the chance. Flim-flammery ensued:
DID the Delegation discuss it and was consensus achieved?
Bogert: “the bill itself did not officially come up before the Delegation in a Delegation meeting. It had been discussed individually and as you can note that four of the sponsors are from the Delegation itself.
Trying to get out of the hole he dug for himself, that last bit.
- Then the Nail in the Coffin (and Weasel Words #3
Another Rep asked, “Were any of the Delegation opposed to the bill?”
Bogert: To my knowledge, no
Verbiage is right from an old-time snake oil salesman. And very checkable – I called a few. ALL of them said, “No, I oppose the bill“.
So , there was NO consensus. And NO, not all individual Reps were contacted. And no, the four Reps sponsoring the bill are not a plurality.
So it seems that Bogert, and perhaps the others in on this, didn’t WANT to know who didn’t support the bill because then he would have had to admit it. Plausible Deniability and obfuscation.
Lied by Omission by not telling the WHOLE truth (which would have been talking about the Delegation and ALL the Reps’ stances). He, Wright, and Hogan, in my opinion, tried to mislead the Committee.
For that, Wright and Bogert should suffer a consequence. The problem, under the Law, is that I don’t know of one other than slashing the Sheriff’s salary as part of the budget process (which won’t happen) and keeping Bogert off any other Delegation Committees (which, given Harry Bean as Chair), won’t happen either.
But I’m quite sure that doing this bit of shoe leather work will make me the bad guy, once again.
Right, Chair Harry Bean?
Tried to get away with something and got caught.
All it takes is a normal citizen, thinking logically, to look into something and ask some simple questions. And you know what THAT takeaway is?
What else are they trying to pull without anyone else knowing about it?
The solution is always MORE speech and Big Flashlights rather than Governmental Dark Corners.
