Newmarket Residents Fund Lies to Ombudsman, Courts

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

When Prosecutorial Refusal Left Taxpayers Paying for a Lie
The residents of Newmarket, New Hampshire, did not lose more than $60,000 because of confusion or bureaucratic error. They lost it because their public officials violated New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, were caught, and then constructed a false legal narrative to conceal that violation — a narrative that state prosecutors later refused to investigate.

The refusal by Associate Attorney General Thomas P. Velardi, acting for the New Hampshire Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit, ensured that the cost of that concealment was borne not by the officials who committed it, but by the residents of Newmarket themselves.

The Underlying Right-to-Know Violation Is Not Disputed
The factual record establishes one central truth: the Newmarket Town Council discussed, deliberated, and approved a settlement agreement through emails with the Town Manager.

Under RSA 91-A, that conduct constitutes a meeting. It must be noticed, public, and memorialized through public records and minutes. None of those requirements were met.

Fournier’s Letter: A False Legal Shield Is Invented
After the violation was exposed, Town Manager Stephen Fournier issued a Right-to-Know denial letter stating that all discussions, deliberations, and approval of the settlement agreement occurred in consultation with legal counsel, and therefore no public records existed.

This was not an omission. It was an affirmative claim that legal consultation replaced public deliberation and eliminated the Town’s Right-to-Know obligations. That claim was false.

The Falsehood Is Repeated Under Oath
Fournier then swore to the same narrative in an affidavit submitted to the court, asserting that no deliberations or approvals occurred outside consultation with legal counsel and that no records existed as a result. This affidavit became the foundation for subsequent litigation and enforcement proceedings.

The Lie Is Used to Block RTK Enforcement
Relying on Fournier’s sworn affidavit, Town counsel John Ratigan informed the Right-to-Know Ombudsman that the Town did not violate RSA 91-A and that the Ombudsman should rely on Fournier’s affidavit.

The Admission That Destroyed the Story
Later, Attorney Ratigan admitted in court that there was no consultation with legal counsel and that the Town Council did, in fact, discuss, deliberate, and approve the settlement agreement through emails with the Town Manager.

This admission proves that the earlier representations were false and were used to conceal a known Right-to-Know violation.
This Was Concealment, Not a Civil Misunderstanding
Once officials falsify a public record, swear to it under oath, and use it to mislead an oversight body, the conduct moves beyond civil noncompliance and into criminal concealment.

Velardi’s Refusal: Where Accountability Stopped
Despite the record, including sworn statements later contradicted by admissions, the DOJ refused to open any criminal investigation. No inquiry was made into falsified public records, false affidavits, or misrepresentations to the Ombudsman.

The Financial Cost to Residents
Because no investigation occurred, litigation continued, enforcement actions multiplied, and legal fees mounted. Newmarket residents have now paid more than $60,000 defending a settlement approval process that was hidden from them and justified through a false narrative.

The Real Harm to Residents
Residents were denied transparency, deprived of public records, misled through official filings, and forced to fund years of unnecessary litigation.

Conclusion
Public officials cannot erase public deliberations by calling them legal consultations. Prosecutors cannot ignore sworn falsehoods without consequence. When accountability stops, taxpayers pay — and that is exactly what happened in Newmarket.