My Last Blog? Read On

As some of you may know I was recently elected to serve as the City Councilor for Ward 2. With that responsibility comes the obligation to be able to approach issues that come before the City Council with an open mind. While there have been ethics rulings that allow those with strong opinions (stated in the past) to rule on those same issues, I think the prudent course is to refrain from blogging about my opinion on issues that may come before the City Council.

So today's blog will be the last of what I think. What I plan to do is to blog on issues that I believe will effect you. Instead of my opinion, I plan on making the blogs informational, a way to keep you up to date on the issues in our city. 

I expect to hear from you and I expect you won’t be bashful in telling me what you think. It is important for you to remember that the only way I can represent you is if you inform me of your opinions.

Please be assured that my campaign promise to you hasn’t changed. And be assured that before voting on any issue I will ask how it impacts the city financially; if the issue is growth and development, does it make sense for Concord; and most importantly I will always ask what you think.

But again, in order for me to keep my most important promise to you - what do you think - you have to be willing to make your voice heard.

I look forward to finding ways to keep you informed and for ways to hear what you think. If you have any ideas or thoughts on where we can get together to share ideas and opinions and if you ever want to write or talk with me remember I can be contacted at:

allan4council@gmail.com

224-6086

I look forward to hearing from you.

And here’s my observations from the appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court by the Local Government Center.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard arguments on the appeal by the Local Government Center (LGC) on the hearing officers final order from the Administrative Hearings last summer. The LGC argues that the hearing officer erred in many of his rulings, including the return of $17.1 million to the Health Trust from the Workers Comp fund.

As I understand it, the primary responsibility of a Board of Directors is to protect their shareholders (members). When William Saturley, representing the former Local Government Center, stated before the Supreme Court, that he felt the Board of Directors was looking out for the best interests of the LGC’s members it certainly got my attention. Because what I observed from the hearings and from the testimony it sure sounded like the Board of Directors was looking out for the LGC and its various entities.

Saturley argues that the purpose of the risk pools is to pool funds to buy insurance and that all the LGC’s Board did was pool resources. There is a big hole in this argument. Each pool (or Trust) is a separate entity (they are now and they should have been then). I believe there was never any consideration for separate pools with separate members to share funding and I believe neither does RSA 5-B.

Saturley claims that the transfer of $17.1 million from the Health Trust to the Workers Comp fund was for the benefit of their members. But Andru Volinsky argued (while representing the State) that 2/3 of the Health Trusts members did not belong to the Workers Comp fund.

Let’s also remember that any surplus in the individual Trusts is required to be returned to the members. If you gift one Trust with $17.1 million from another Trust, it is pretty obvious that the $17.1 million was surplus and should have found its way back to the members and not for bailing out a failing Workers Comp program.

When you read RSA 5-B, it is clear that the members are the Trusts. There should never have been any question in the minds of the Board who they were representing. But here’s where it gets interesting. Remember that John Andrews (the former Executive Director of the LGC) testified at the Administrative Hearing that the reason they got into trouble in the first place was to beat out a competitor in the Workers Comp market. That was the over riding factor and how they achieved it was inconsequential to them. 

Saturley also made the argument that since there were no administrative rules before 2010, that everything the Board did was above board. Justice Conboy asked Saturley if he believed that just because there were no administrative rules that the Board can’t be charged with acting unreasonably.

Volinsky in his testimony before the court argued that the claim that the Board acted in the best interests of their members just wasn’t credible, based on the evidence from the Administrative Hearing.

There are other issues, like who has the authority to set the rates for reserves. Those and other issues are in the Briefs filed with the court. Todays’ oral arguments focused on the authority of the Board and the transfer of the $17.1 million.

Possibly Justice Conboy outlined how the Court is going to look at this case. There are two overriding issues. Did the LGC, their Executive Director and their Board of Directors act wrongly. And did the hearing office err in his final order. 

If yes, the LGC acted wrongly (and I certainly believe they did) and if they believe the hearing officer erred, than what?  A new hearing? A hearing in a different venue? More tax dollars spent?

It seems we won’t know until this spring, so we’ll all have to be patient and see what the Court decides.