As the Board of Mayor and Aldermen moves to replace at-Large Alderman Joe Kelly Levasseur as its chair, it has both avoided the very questionable conduct of a city department head and embarked on a course of action that would place unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment rights of elected officials.
Levasseur is “in trouble,” ostensibly because he “went after” Anna Thomas, the city’s public health director, “personally.” He took exception to Thomas’ refusal to disclose whether her department contacted resident Daniel Mowery before issuing a Cease-and-Desist letter, barring him from sharing homemade pickles with anybody.
Backed by Mayor Jay Ruais, Thomas said she wouldn’t comment on an open investigation. Given that Thomas was before the board discussing that same investigation, one could conclude her answer was designed to avoid having to say “no.” Moreover, in testimony before the board, Mowery said he contacted the department after receiving the letter and that nobody responded.
Before and after that meeting on September 2, Levasseur was outspoken about the controversy on his personal Facebook page. While he mostly posted memes modified to elevate “Picklegate” as an issue of government overreach, patriotism, and liberty, he referred to Thomas as “queen” and “Fauchi,” and questioned whether or not she understood the impact of her decisions on Manchester residents, given that she lived in Concord.
Thomas complained to aldermen that this created a “hostile work environment” and demanded action to shut Levasseur down. The maneuvers to hold a non-public meeting under the guise of dealing with an employee whose reputation may be harmed if the matter was discussed in public, proved to be a ruse as, ultimately, the meeting was called to deal with the conduct of an elected official, not an employee.
In an email to the aldermen, Ruais said there will be two motions on the agenda for the October 7 meeting, allegedly at the behest of board “members.” The first directs the solicitor and clerk to draft language amending the board’s “rules of decorum” to incorporate “the spirit of the City’s Anti-Harassment and Workplace Violence policies found within our current Employee Handbook.”
The second asserts “that neither the Board of Mayor and Aldermen nor the City of Manchester, will tolerate personal attacks, threats, or innuendos against its employees or other officials and that the residents of Manchester can rest assured that the City provides a safe and comfortable work environment for all; and further that this board has the complete faith and trust in Director Thomas and the outstanding employees of our Department of Health as they work every day to improve the health of individuals and families across our community.”
That’s not only an unconstitutional prior restraint on Free Speech, the terms used are also in the eye of the beholder. Who determines what’s a “personal attack,” or a “threat,” or an “innuendo?” While the board is well within its right to determine if the conduct of one of its members warrants their removal from the chairmanship, restricting a board member’s speech with subjective terms is beyond its mandate and something best left to voters.
In pushing this “harassment” narrative and asserting their confidence in Thomas and her department, Ruais and the aggrieved aldermen are avoiding serious questions raised by this issue, including:
Did the health department contact the accused prior to issuing the Cease-and-Desist letter to determine what exactly was going on? If not, why?
Why did Thomas, in an email to department staff, provide links to a decade-old article with negative information about Mowery and another linking him to Sen. Victoria Sullivan, a Republican, during her campaign for alderman in Ward 9?
Why, when, and by what authority did the health department adopt a policy to NOT enforce this ordinance against those who made baked goods? After all, the ordinance DOES also apply to those.
Why were not Mowery’s inquiries responded to?
Why does not Ordinance Section 110.08 (B) Exemptions, which provides “Casual activity or sales by minors or by persons who may or may not be licensed under the provisions of this title shall not be construed to be engaged in a business activity and no license may be levied on such persons for such activity” apply in this situation?
This political assault on Levasseur not only sidesteps these questions, it also sets up a paradigm when any critical question or comment about an employee’s conduct is verboten (German word intentionally chosen.) How are elected officials to hold anyone accountable under these rules?
Rich Girard served as an assistant to the mayor of Manchester from 1992 to 1997, as an at-Large member of the Board of Aldermen from 1998 to 2000 and an at-Large member of the Board of School Committee from 2016 to 2020. He publishes www.GirardatLarge.com and resides in Manchester.
