Derek Thibeault used his weekly newsletter to call a request for the August 7, 2025, non-public Nashua Board of Aldermen minutes “petty.” Transparency is never petty; it is the people’s right, and the Board broke the law.
The Board entered that closed session without reading the statutory language required by RSA 91-A. That isn’t a “technical mistake”; it’s the difference between a lawful meeting and an unlawful one. Nearly forty pages of discussion were sealed until the Board was pressed to unseal them, with only two lines redacted. That proves secrecy wasn’t protecting negotiations; it was protecting insiders.
Thibeault then disclosed the subject of the September 9, 2025, sealed minutes (where the Board discussed the unlawful sealing of the August 7, 2025, non-public meeting minutes) in his own newsletter, while accusing me of impropriety for asking to see them. You can’t violate confidentiality on Tuesday and smear citizens for seeking openness on Wednesday. That double standard is not leadership.
That fact alone demolishes the claim that secrecy was needed to protect negotiations, thirty-nine pages of minutes with two lines redacted. What those pages actually show is an extensive discussion of a public asset and a project tied to roughly $30 million in construction costs, almost certainly borne by taxpayers. It appears that secrecy is routine.
Thibeault now suggests the Board was “forced” to unseal the minutes and warned that disclosure somehow harms the city. But the roll-call shows he voted to unseal. If secrecy were truly essential, why vote to release them? You don’t get credit for both sides of the argument.
He also claims I “threatened to sue” if the minutes weren’t released. Here are the facts. Between August 7 and September 2, I sent five emails to the City, requesting that they consult with legal counsel, explain the remedy for the unlawful non-public session, and provide the required records. Only after delays did I give formal notice on September 2 that I would pursue remedies under RSA 91-A:8 if noncompliance continued. I received the records on September 10th, which were hardly compliant with the law. That is not a tantrum; it is the exact accountability step the statute prescribes.
In the same newsletter, Thibeault asked readers to find him a pro bono lawyer because “the city does not provide us counsel,” as I filed an Ethics Complaint for releasing confidential information. He doesn’t need one. Ethics hearings are administrative; an alderman can represent himself, as I do. What Nashua does need is an Ethics Review Committee that behaves like the quasi-judicial body it claims to be. Instead, under Chairman Bush, the committee operates like a shield for insiders. The chair’s conduct too often resembles advocacy, not neutrality, and the public can see it. Chairman Bush will represent Thibeault, and he will win.
Accountability isn’t a threat; it’s the law. When officials shrug off violations as “stuff happens,” taxpayers lose, in money, trust, and the right to see how their government operates.
Asking questions, demanding records, and insisting that officials follow the rules should not be branded as “petty’ nor as acts of hostility; they are the duties of a self-governing people. If that makes some politicians uncomfortable and citizens targets, it is a discomfort worth keeping.
Sunlight doesn’t weaken Nashua; it strengthens it. On Election Day, the choice is clear: leaders who treat transparency as a duty, or leaders who treat it as a “petty” inconvenience.
