Rep. Aylward: WOW! What a day in Concord and Beyond. . .

Wow! What a Day in Concord, and Beyond. . .

News Release

HB 1135 Receives Unanimous Committee Support/Full House Passed Bill
Contact: Rep. Deborah Aylward

Concord, NH — Prime Sponsor, Representative Deborah Aylward (R–Merr. 5)) announced today that HB 1135, relative to private roads and trails, was voted 17–0 Ought to Pass as Amended by the House Municipal and County Government Committee and placed on the House Consent Calendar.

Receiving bi-partisan support from Co-sponsor, Rep. David Fracht (D-Graf. 16), HB 1135 creates a new section of law (RSA 477:33-a) and clarifies that the use of a landowner’s private road, driveway, or trail — regardless of duration — does not create a right, title, or easement by prescription, adverse possession, or implication.

The bill builds upon longstanding New Hampshire law, including RSA 477:34, which prohibits prescriptive or adverse use claims against public property, by extending similar protections to private property owners.

“This legislation reinforces a simple principle,” said Rep. Aylward. “What protects public land from being taken by prescriptive or adverse use under RSA 477:34, should likewise protect private landowners. HB 1135 ensures that open, hostile use, or informal or neighborly accommodation cannot later be turned into a permanent loss of property rights unless claims are fully adjudicated or currently being adjudicated by the date of enactment.”

An amendment brought by Rep. Aylward, was adopted by the committee, and addresses municipal concerns raised during the hearing process and clarifies the bill’s application ensuring that existing, lawfully established utility easements remain unaffected. The New Hampshire Association of Realtors and other stakeholders indicated support of the measure.

After constructive discussions with interested parties, the New Hampshire Municipal Association took a neutral position on the amended bill. HB 1135 now moves to the full House for consideration.

Update: The Full House subsequently passed HB 1135 as amended on March 6th, and now its off to the Senate.

For more information, please contact Deborah.Aylward@gc.nh.gov, or David.Fracht@gc.nh.gov.

HB 1135 Addresses 'Theft of Land Title'

Colloquially known as “obtaining land title by theft,” the doctrines of adverse possession and prescriptive use have long allowed individuals to claim ownership or usage rights to another’s land after 20 years of certain qualifying use.

If passed, HB 1135 would prohibit claims of adverse possession or prescriptive easement over private roads, driveways, trails, and ways — unless such a claim has already been fully adjudicated, or is actively being litigated before the effective date of the act.

This bill was championed by a gentleman from Sandwich, New Hampshire, who expressed concern that modern mapping applications are directing recreators and travelers onto private roads, resulting in trespass, undue wear and tear, and safety concerns — even where roads are clearly marked “Private.”

The concern was not merely nuisance traffic, but the legal risk that, after 20 years of qualifying use, an individual or group could attempt to claim permanent rights in those roads.

Interestingly, New Hampshire law already protects public lands from such claims. Under RSA 477:34, no person may acquire rights to public property through adverse occupation. If the State and municipalities are shielded from land loss by adverse possession, it stands to reason that private property owners should receive the same protection.

The bill had the support of the NH Realtors Association, the Farm Bureau and the Timberland Owners Association. These are the ‘heavy hitter’ stakeholders when it comes to property law legislation.

Co-Owned Roads and the Problem

of “Adverse Possession”

New Hampshire courts have long recognized that a person cannot adversely possess property they already own, in entirety, or in part. In the case of a commonly-held private road — where each owner holds an undivided interest (meaning property owners own the road in fee simple, and in entirety) — one co-owner cannot simply claim exclusive title against the others unless meeting an extraordinarily high bar of proof and succeeding in Superior Court.

Why All Co-Owners Must Be Named (and Why That Matters)

If a co-owner nevertheless attempts to bring a claim to obtain exclusive title to a commonly-held private road, in part, or entirety, all other co-owners must be named as defendants in a quiet title, or other action.

Here’s why:
Due Process:
 The court cannot alter or extinguish a person’s property rights unless that person is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Every co-owner has a legally protected ownership interest.

Indispensable Parties Rule:
 Under property law principles, all persons whose interests would be affected by a title determination are necessary (often “indispensable”) parties. A court cannot issue a binding ruling otherwise.

Finality of Judgment:
 If a co-owner were not named, any judgment would be vulnerable to challenge and could later be invalidated.

The practical consequence?

Each co-owner would be forced to hire legal counsel and incur substantial expense simply to defend an ownership interest they already lawfully possess — often just to have the claim dismissed.
This creates unnecessary financial burden, fosters hostility among neighbors, and weaponizes litigation over shared infrastructure that was never meant to be exclusively owned by one party, in entirety, or in part.

In other words, the inconsiderate neighbor who has left an out-of-commission vehicle parked within the road's boundaries for 20 years, cannot bring an ownership claim to that part of the road because the deeds already give the neighbor ownership through undivided interest and the courts have held that one cannot claim adverse possession of something they already own. If passed, under HB 1135 as amended, after the effective date of the act, all clams of adverse possession and prescriptive use will be banned, and will protect road co-owners from unnecessary and expensive litigation.

###
CITIZEN COMMENTARY
WHY I WOULD 'VOTE NO' ON TOWN OF DANBURY/ARTICLE 18
by Deborah Aylward

Although I am unable to vote on 2/10/26 due to a legislative commitment, if voting, I would "Vote NO" on Article 18, which proposes creating a committee to study a potential merger of the Danbury Police Department with "...[o]ne or more neighboring municipalities...", for the following reasons.

ARTICLE 18. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Police Department Merger Study Committee for the purpose of studying the feasibility, costs, benefits, and impacts of merging the town’s Police Department with one or more neighboring municipalities’ police departments; and to further vote to authorize the select board to appoint 7 members to said committee, representing relevant stakeholders including municipal officials and the public; to charge the committee with evaluating operational efficiency, financial impacts, staffing, service levels, governance structures, and public safety outcomes; and to require the committee to report its findings and recommendations to the Select Board and the Town at a future Town Meeting or public hearing by a date certain; said committee to be advisory only and to have no authority to bind the town to any merger or contractual obligation. Majority vote required.

1) Article 18 is drafted in a manner that is vague, ambiguous, and therefore, is imprecise.
This creates uncertainty about how the article would function under Danbury’s SB2 form of government, as it reads: “. . .[a]nd to require the committee to report its findings and recommendations to the Select Board and the Town at a future Town Meeting or public hearing by a date certain;. . .”



Article 18, the proposed Police Department Merger Study Committee, contains drafting issues that raise legitimate concerns about clarity, structure, and process. Danbury operates under the SB2 (i.e. Senate Bill 2) system, yet the article references reporting findings at a future “Town Meeting,” a term that does not accurately reflect how decisions are made in Danbury.

Precision in warrant articles matters, and this proposal lacks it.

 Under the SB2 system, the legislative body (i.e. voters) meet annually at a Deliberative Session followed by official ballot voting. Policy decisions are not made at Deliberative Sessions. Yet Article 18 refers to reporting findings to the “Town” at a future “Town Meeting.”

That terminology is imprecise in an SB2 town and creates confusion about how, or even whether, any action would follow the committee’s work.

Furthermore, Article 18 WILDLY ASSUMES that a committee’s findings may be presented at a "public hearing". Under Danbury’s SB2 structure, a 'public hearing' step is not required unless and until a formal warrant article or statutory action is proposed. As written, Article 18 blurs that distinction, and appears to improperly lead voters into authorizing a formal warrant article action in the future.


In an SB2 town:

--A Deliberative Session occurs only in connection with posted warrant articles.

--Public hearings are required only where statute or ordinance mandates them (e.g., budget, zoning, certain bond issues).

--There is no automatic requirement that an advisory committee report be presented at a deliberative session.

--There is no automatic requirement that a public hearing be held unless a warrant article or statutory trigger follows.


 Voters deserve to know exactly what they are authorizing and how the process will unfold. In an SB2 town such as Danbury, any committee’s findings would properly be reported to the governing body — the Select Board — which would then determine whether further action is warranted and publish the findings for public review.

A public hearing would only be required if the study ultimately resulted in a proposed warrant article for ballot consideration.

--The wording of the article improperly implies a future public process beyond mere reporting.

--The structure of the language improperly suggests a pathway towards a type of formal action.

As drafted, Article 18 blurs that sequence. By referencing reporting to the “Town” at a future “Town Meeting,” (where voters debate and vote from the floor, which Danbury does not) it creates ambiguity, and therefore, uncertainty about the actual procedural path forward under a SB2, Deliberative Session (not 'Town Meeting") form of town governance.


Beyond terminology, Article 18 establishes an advisory committee with no clear timeline beyond a vague, “date certain”.

So what exactly is the specific problem, cost concern, or operational deficiency that necessitates creating a different form of municipal structure?

Look at the crime stats provided below. Do they depict Danbury as a crime-ridden town? And at what cost to Danbury taxpayers would a merger bring? Last time the merger subject came up a few years ago, involving the Town of Alexandria, it appeared as if Danbury taxpayers would be paying Alexandria to police -- Alexandria. (See similarity in 'Letter to the Editor' below). The proposed expenses provided by the two departments (having the same police chief) were skewed, and the proposal didn't pass voters' muster.


Furthermore, Danbury already has the ability to explore inter-municipal cooperation through existing statutory mechanisms (RSA 53-A) and through the authority of the Select Board. The Select Board has the authority to explore such arrangements without creating an additional advisory committee. Forming a separate study committee, the required qualifications of members unknown, such risks unnecessarily expending volunteer time, public energy and possible resources, for less than an independent outcome.

One must ask: Which 'neighboring town' police departments have expressed interest in a reciprocal merger, in writing, or otherwise? 

When considering structural changes to essential services such as public safety, the town should proceed with clarity, transparency, experience, and a well-defined objective. Article 18, as written, does not provide that clarity.

Article 18 raises structural concerns:

--How are committee member candidates selected?
--What specific qualifications will be required of committee members, especially the Chair?
--Will candidates be required to have experience in municipal project planning, operations, finance, law, or public safety administration?
-- What safeguards will ensure neutrality, transparency, and avoidance of conflicts of interest?

If the Town believes a merger warrants serious consideration, the proper approach would be to appropriate funds for and engage the services of an INDEPENDENT CONSULTING FIRM with demonstrated municipal public safety expertise, selected through a transparent procurement process, whether put out for bid, or request for proposal. This ensures:

--Comprehensive and defensible data collection
--Objective financial modeling
--Evaluation of governance and liability impacts
--Public trust in the outcome

Creating an advisory committee without defined committee member qualifications, to especially include education, training or experience in ". . .[e]valuating operational efficiency, financial impacts, staffing, service levels, governance structures, and public safety outcomes. . ."; such risks generating incomplete or unreliable findings.

Taxpayers authorized 50K a few years ago for what turned out to be a failed, woefully inadequate 'feasibility study' regarding a proposed municipal building project. And a department head appeared to be acting as if the Town's general contractor, that seemed like 'conflict of interest' to me! Those funds should have been used to hire a firm specialized in municipal project planning. If not learning from this mistake, is the Town doomed to repeat it?

As always, consider the source!

--Who brought this citizens' petition?

--Who were the other petitioners?

--Do any of the petitioners have familial ties to law enforcement, or stand to gain financially if a merger occurred?

--Was the petition brought on behalf of any member of law enforcement who would stand to gain from a merger?

Well, one would not know by reviewing Selectmen meeting minutes that, as of Feb. 28th, are DEVOID of any information other than the board's 'review of 3 petitioned warrant articles" at Jan. 14th meeting. Curious indeed!

Therefore, answers to these questions can only be obtained through a public record request for Feb. 5th Deliberative Session minutes since they are not posted to the Town's website.

But why? Why should any citizen have to make such a request? Why are these minutes not posted to the Town Website, and why is there such lack of transparency??

AVOIDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST

IF ARTICLE 18 is approved by voters. . .and if municipal officials who would later negotiate or recommend a merger are appointed to the study committee, it raises questions about independence and whether the outcome is predetermined, so having any member of the governing body sit on an advisory committee -- is not recommended. Obviously, the governing body may provide information, insight and speak to the members during meetings of the committee, but must not exert influence or steer the committee in any way.

BOTTOM LINE

The governing body must not rely on less than excellence and experience regarding any study having POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX IMPACT. Officials and voters should only rely on INDEPENDENT FINDINGS generated by an INDEPENDENT FIRM specialized in such matters.

Instead of forming a study committee, needed are clear crime data, service metrics, cost comparisons and likely property tax impacts generated by an INDEPENDENT FIRM experienced in municipal project planning -- for voters' informed decision-making!

2) Voters previously rejected a similar proposal involving a proposed merger with the Town of Alexandria. So "No" means "No".

3) Of interest:

The 2024 Town of Danbury Annual Report/Police Department Report provides total “calls for service,” but does not include a breakdown by "type of call". That information is essential for voters to evaluate whether a change is even warranted.

From the Annual Report:

--2023 Calls for Service – Total: 765
Danbury PD: 167
Franklin PD: 259
Merrimack County Sheriff: 97
NH State Police: 242

--2024 Calls for Service – Total: 1,531
Danbury PD: 549
Franklin PD: 777
NH State Police: 205

Without understanding the nature of these calls — such as felonies, misdemeanors, motor vehicle enforcement, welfare checks, civil or domestic disputes, cats stuck in trees, serving warrants, performing details, etc. — voters cannot meaningfully assess the “state of crime” or public safety needs in Town.

As recalled, the last time a breakdown of stats were published, maybe 3 years ago, there were like only 7, maybe 9 felonies reported.

Most municipalities routinely publish police logs or annual statistical summaries to provide transparency. Danbury does not, but MUST do so. Anything less is a disservice to citizens.

CRIME STATISTICS

So, for voters’ information and consideration, the following crime statistics, provided by the NH Dept. of Safety (crimestats.dos.nh.gov) as reported by Danbury and 'neighboring town' police departments are as follows:



From the site: " The following data is collected in New Hampshire via detailed incident reports using the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). These reports are completed after the preliminary investigation of a call for service or complaint."


DANBURY, Population approx.1,200
--2024
Violent Crime: 0
Property Crime: 13
Fraud: 1
Domestic Violence: 2
Drugs/DUI: 0
Sex Offenses: 3

--2023
Violent Crime: 0
Property Crime: 1
Domestic Violence: 0
Drugs/DUI: 0
Sex Offenses: 0

-- Question: If believing these statistics are accurate, do these statistics support the idea of merging the Danbury police department with a neighboring town???

-- Question: Does the current police chief support Article 18?

ANDOVER 2024/Population approx. 2,000
Violent Crime: 5
Property Crime: 16
Domestic Violence 9
Sex Offenses: 5
Drugs/DUI: 1

ALEXANDRIA 2024/Population approx. 1,700
Violent Crime: 1
Property Crime: 5
Domestic Violence: 4
Sex Offenses: 0
Drugs/DUI: 1

WILMOT 2024/Population approx. 1,471
Violent Crime: 0


Property Crime: 6


Domestic Violence: 0


Sex Offenses: 1
Drugs/DUI: 0

GRAFTON 2024/Population approx. 1,014
Drugs/DUI: : 0 


Violent Crime: 0


Property Crime: 0


Domestic Violence: 1


Sex Offenses: 0

HILL 2024/ Population approx. 1, 050
Drugs/DUI: 0
Violent Crime: 0
Property Crime: 7
Domestic Violence: 3
Sex Offenses: 0


Obviously, given the reporting of over 1,500 'calls for service' in 2024 by Danbury PD, there is a need for serious, independent research into and detailing what are the nature of the hundreds of 'calls for service' responded to by the Danbury Police Department, the Sheriff's Office, NH State Police and Franklin, with a 3-year look-back in order -- I would think, especially since the number of calls has seriously spiked, or seemingly doubled (notwithstanding the disclaimer that there could be 'duplication') from 2023 to 2024, but with low to no crime stats provided to the Dept. of Safety? 


From the reporting of low to no crimes to crimestats.dos.nh.gov, something seems amiss, and if accurate, do not support the idea of a 'merger', or that of Danbury taxpayers' potentially funding another town's police department.

I firmly believe an independent, professionally-conducted study to produce accurate data is in order, and that in subsequent years, the police department owes it to citizens to publish a detailed police log of its activities.

The following questions about Article 18 linger:

--Were voters meaningfully informed?
--Were Deliberative Session minutes timely posted, if at all?
--Were key facts disclosed by the Select board?
--Is there documented reciprocal interest?

Were these questions asked/answered during the Deliberative Session?

The Deliberative Session determines the final wording of articles before they go to ballot vote — yet only a small fraction of voters typically attend. However, to date, the Deliberative Session minutes are not evident on the Town's website.

Short of attending the Deliberative Session, or having to request a copy of the Deliberative Session minutes, the Town has not adequately, nor publicly informed the average citizen regarding the particulars of Article 18.

While writing this article, I submitted a Right-to-Know Request under RSA 91-A ( the open records and government transparency law) to the Town Clerk's office.

I requested a copy of the 2026 Deliberative Session minutes be sent to my email address. The response I got from the Deputy Clerk was that the records were only available for ‘inspection’ at Town Hall; that they were contained in a notebook and would be available in a (future) Town Report.

A lot of good that does voters before March 10, 2026. Why should any citizen have to schlep over to Town Hall to access what should be readily-available minutes maintained in digital format??

So WHY are these important minutes not in digital format for timely posting on the Town’s website, and providing by email?

Voters who did not attend the Deliberative Session rely on minutes to understand what happened. If those minutes are effectively buried in a notebook, voters cannot reasonably review them before voting.

And if attempting to find information about Article 18 from the Select Board, the minutes of the Jan. 14th meeting minutes read:

New Business
• Review of resident submitted warrant articles. (3)
o Petitioned Warrant Articles reviewed.

That's it. That's it? At a MINIMUM, regarding petitioned warrant articles, the minutes should identify:

-- the subject matter of the petition
-- the prime petitioner
-- any board discussion
--any votes or actions

Even if not legally required, voters reasonably expect more detail.

Whereas the Town has indicated the Deliberative Session minutes are only available for inspection at the Town Clerk’s office, also omitting minimal information about the petitioned articles in meeting minutes (i.e. sanitizing) before Town Meeting voting raises legitimate transparency concerns.

Many residents who were unable to attend the February 5 session rely on those minutes to understand what occurred — particularly regarding what gives the appearance of at least one controversial, petitioned warrant article. Requiring citizens to travel to Town Hall simply to review meeting minutes makes meaningful public awareness difficult during the narrow window before voting day.

Deliberative Session is part of the New Hampshire Official Ballot Referendum System (SB 2) process.
The entire purpose of that system is informed voting.

So the Select board withholding details, and the Deputy Town Clerk/Town Clerk withholding easy access to the session minutes arguably undermines the spirit of SB2, even if technically lawful.

Danbury seriously lacks procedural opacity. Towns sometimes comply with the bare legal minimum while still making public oversight difficult. This, while other Towns video tape/live stream and archive all board meetings!

Deliberative Session is the one opportunity voters have to hear discussion, ask questions, and even amend certain warrant articles before they appear on the ballot. For residents who were unable to attend the February 5 session, the official minutes are often the only way to understand what occurred.

Many residents work during Town Hall hours, are elderly, infirm, don’t drive or may wish to be anonymous— and requiring citizens to travel to Town Hall simply to review annual session minutes makes meaningful public awareness more than difficult.

It's as if there is some type of secret. . . .that Town officials don't want citizens to know.

In a small town where important issues are often decided by a relatively small number of voters, transparency should be the goal—not merely technical compliance.

Posting or distributing meeting minutes electronically would allow residents to review what occurred at Deliberative Session and make informed decisions when casting their ballots. However, DANBURY HAS NOT!!!

When access to basic public records is limited during the narrow window before voting, it naturally casts a shadow of suspicion over the process and leaves voters questioning whether they are being given the full picture before making their decisions, and if not, WHY NOT is the question!

As a former private investigator, I was paid to investigate when something didn’t add up. When transparency is lacking, it invites scrutiny—because open government should never fear informed citizens.

There mere fact that the 2026 session minutes are not posted to the Town’s website (where citizens can access government information from the comfort of their own homes) should be enough to make voters’ pause, and ask what is really behind the warrant articles appearing on the ballot? Why has the Town created such a barrier to some of the people who pay their salaries?

Transparency is not just a legal and moral obligation—it is essential to a town’s civic health. Communities that operate openly tend to attract participation, investment, and confidence from their residents. When information about public decisions is difficult to access, the opposite can occur: disengagement, skepticism, and stagnation.

If Danbury hopes to grow and prosper, openness in government should be viewed as an asset, not an inconvenience!

Transparency is not an obstacle to good government—it is the foundation of it. Enough said

For these reasons I would "VOTE NO" on Article 18.

###

DANBURY TAXPAYERS BEWARE!

Read the school ballot carefully, according to John Sellers (below), voting 'Yes' to a $2.1 M increase could cost $800.00 annually in additional property taxes on a $400 thousand dollar home!!!

Letter to the Editor/Submitted to the Laconia Daily Sun

by John Sellers

Voting is on March 10^th this year and the Newfound School District is asking for 2.1 million dollars representing a 7.91 percent increase over last year.

Alexandria and Danbury will pay the largest share of this bill with Bristol and New Hampton contributing smaller portions.

If everything passes, this increase will cost taxpayers approximately 800 dollars on a 400-thousand-dollar home.

There are some arguments for new taxes, i.e. insurance and salaries go up and repairs are needed and there are some arguments against new taxes, i.e. poor proficiency scores in reading, writing and math, administration costs, declining student count, and maybe having too many facilities to maintain and support.

The Numbers

• Last Year’s Approved Budget: $27,242,996
• Proposed Budget (without warrant articles): $28,346,133
• Total Proposed Budget (if all warrant articles pass): $29,398,128
• Total Increase in Tax Dollars: $2,155,132 (7.91%)

Breakdown of Proposed Increases (Warrant Articles)

• Teacher Salary Increase: $378,989
• New Solar Roof Installation (20-year lease): $94,824
• New LED Lights at High School (20-year lease): $85,447
• New Propane Boiler (20-year lease): $492,735

If you support these increases, then come and vote YES. If you oppose these new taxes, then come and vote NO.

Most importantly, participate. If you show up and vote on March 10th, our community benefits from an engaged and informed electorate.

John Sellers is a resident of Bristol and also serves as a State Representative.

Disclaimer: The figures cited in this letter have not been verified by the author, who, after research believes the $800.00 cited is an 'estimate'. The letter is numerically mostly correct, but it simplifies the causes of the increase and lacks tax-rate calculations. It reads more like a political summary than a full fiscal analysis.Voters are encouraged to do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

PAST PREDICTION COMES TO FRUITION!

From: January 14, 2026 Town of Danbury Select board meeting minutes:

Appointments

FD Chief Jeremy Martin @ 7:00pm to discuss volunteer vs employee FD

-- Extensively writing in opposition to previously proposed $3M and $3.2M bonds for what I called a 'fantasy firehouse', that from the building's sketch I identified what appeared to be areas containing 'beds' and believing that an all volunteer fire dept. doesn't need 'beds', and further believing the 'beds' were an indicator of someone's plan for the building to house 'career' or 'part-career' personnel (i.e. all full-time, or part full-time), the minutes of this meeting appear to fulfill my prophecy that one or more fire department personnel are looking for full time job(s) that come with $$$ benefits!

Of interest, the minutes do not reflect an appearance by Fire Chief Martin at 7:00 p.m. actually occurred, or that of discussion, if any, that would lead a reasonable person to believe 1) that the Chief did not attend, or 2) that he did appear, but that any discussion was mysteriously 'omitted' from the minutes.Why was this not made clear in the minutes?

In any event, taxpayers need to stay alert, review the fire department 2024 report in the Town Annual Report (posted to the website) that shows there were only 11 fires and 146 Medical Aid/EMS calls for service, that in my opinion, does not support any need for full-time personnel.

According to the National Fire Protection Association:

Typical annual incident numbers:

AT 11 fires reported, the Town of Danbury does not even meet the association's typical standard for an all- volunteer department by half in 2024!

###

GOVERNOR RON DeSANTIS TO VISIT
THE GRANITE STATE

On March 10, Governor DeSantis is scheduled to address Republican state lawmakers in Concord on the topic of 'Congressional Term Limits'. Representative Aylward is planning on attending.

Ron DeSantis is the Governor of Florida, first elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. A Republican, he previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2018. He is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School and served as a U.S. Navy JAG officer.


As governor, DeSantis has focused on issues including tax policy, education reform, immigration enforcement, public health policy, and state-level limits on federal mandates. He was a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and remains a nationally recognized figure within the Republican Party.

###

Deborah Aylward is a Danbury resident serving her second term in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. She is a Republican representing Merrimack (District 5) Towns of Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, and Webster, and also serves on the Municipal and County Government Committee. She is also committed to providing citizens with information and opinion on matters affecting local government.