During the May 4 meeting of the Town Council, a troubling issue surfaced of individual councilors contacting the town’s attorneys on their own authority and running up legal bills without approval from the full council.
Town Manager Shaun Mulholland confirmed that the proposed “Use of Legal Counsel” policy (TC-105) would not move forward for now – despite repeated concerns about rising legal costs and possible violations of both the Town Charter and state law.
Councilor Dan Bouchard questioned why the policy had been halted.
“Our legal bills are outrageously high,” Bouchard said. “This is the first I’m hearing that we’re not moving forward with this.”
Council Chair Ron Dunn responded that the matter had previously been tabled. Councilor Shaun Faber quickly clarified that only a member on the prevailing side of that vote could bring it back for discussion.
Dunn, Faber and Ted Combes were the three members who voted to table the policy in March.
Bouchard expressed frustration with what appeared to be an effort to permanently bury the issue.
“In other words, Deb, they’re telling us there’s no way this is moving forward,” he said.
Councilor Deb Paul warned that refusing to address the matter was harming the town.
“Seems like it’s damaging the town,” Paul said.
Mulholland made clear that the proposed policy was created specifically because of ongoing problems with councilors acting independently and bypassing the authority of the council as a whole.
“There’s a problem with the present way you do business,” Mulholland told the council. “I recommend a different way to do business and that’s up to the council to decide if they want to do that or not.”
He then directly addressed the central issue: individual councilors contacting legal counsel and committing taxpayer money without authorization.
“If you have councilors that act unilaterally and expend public funds and incur public funds, they don’t have the authority to do that,” Mulholland said.
He added that legal costs were being generated by “two councilors” acting outside their authority.
The proposed TC-105 policy was written to stop exactly that kind of conduct. According to the draft policy, its purpose was to create “a clear, consistent, transparent and effective process” for using town legal counsel, while ensuring “fiscal responsibility,” “prudent management of legal fees,” and preserving “the collective authority of the Town Council.”
The policy also emphasized that the council must function as a governing body – not as individual elected officials independently directing town business or legal strategy.
Mulholland pointed to Town Charter Section 4.8, “Non-interference with Town Administration,” which states: “The Council shall act in all matters as a body.”
The charter prohibits individual council members from directing town administration outside the authority of the full council.
The issue may also conflict with state law. New Hampshire RSA 49-D:4 bars individual elected officials from interfering with administrative operations or independently directing staff outside proper procedures.
Violations can carry serious consequences, including forfeiture of office.
Despite the concerns raised by Mulholland, Paul and Bouchard urged the council to revisit the policy and address the issue openly. Faber rejected that idea.
“We tabled this, and we’re not getting into a discussion on it,” Faber said.
The exchange highlighted the on-going divide on the council and whether elected officials should continue operating independently with town attorneys behind closed doors, or whether legal decisions involving taxpayer money should be transparent, authorized, and accountable to the full council and the public.