Public Condemnation Of Newmarket Town Manager Steve R. Fournier

The bedrock of ethical municipal governance is absolute transparency, accountability, and a strict adherence to the laws established to protect the public interest. When a public official utilizes the authority of their office to construct shifting factual narratives across multiple legal and administrative forums, it erodes the public trust, compromises the integrity of the judicial system, and subverts the intent of the law.

In the matter of the March 2023 settlement agreement and subsequent enforcement proceedings, the public record reveals a pattern of contradictory assertions advanced by Town Manager Stephen R. Fournier and the Town's legal representatives. These shifting claims—concerning whether the Town Council approved a municipal transaction, how that approval was achieved, and whether responsive public records existed—raise profound concerns regarding administrative transparency and the proper expenditure of over $60,000 in taxpayer funds.

Furthermore, Stephen R. Fournier is strictly prohibited from allowing the machinery of local government—including retained legal counsel—to systematically deploy false, inconsistent, or misleading statements within judicial proceedings. In the consolidated matters spanning the Right-to-Know Ombudsman, the Rockingham County Superior Court, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the administration permitted a volume of over 100 heavily disputed, factually inconsistent, and mutually exclusive assertions to move through the state's tribunals. When a public official knowingly permits, ratifies, or funds a litigation strategy built upon shifting, irreconcilable descriptions of municipal actions, each false filing permitted to enter the court record expands the scope of potential criminal liability.

Alleged Statutory Violations Under NH RSA Chapter 641 (Falsification in Official Matters)
Under New Hampshire criminal jurisprudence, an official cannot escape liability by outsourcing falsehoods to retained attorneys. If a public official knows a statement is factually untrue or structurally deceptive, yet permits their agents to submit it to a judge to secure a favorable ruling or an award of fees, it implicates the following statutory offenses:

1. Tampering with Public Records or Information (RSA 641:7)
Under New Hampshire law, a person is guilty of an offense if they knowingly make a false entry in, or a false alteration of, any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for information or record, or if they intentionally destroy, conceal, remove or otherwise impair the verity or availability of any such record.

The Implicated Conduct: On August 28, 2023, Stephen R. Fournier issued a formal, written Right-to-Know response certifying to a citizen that "as these were consultations with legal counsel, no such documents exist" regarding Town Council discussions, deliberations, or votes.

The Contradiction: The Town’s subsequent legal pleadings and answers to the Superior Court explicitly admitted that responsive email communications concerning the settlement did exist, that they included Stephen R. Fournier, and that they were handled as non-public documents rather than being fundamentally non-existent. Presenting a record as non-existent when it exists and is being withheld represents an alleged impairment of the availability of a government record under RSA 641:7.

2. Unsworn Falsification as a Continuous Scheme (RSA 641:3)
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if they make a written false statement which they do not believe to be true, or if they submit any statement with the purpose to mislead a public servant or tribunal in the performance of an official function.

The Proliferated Conduct: The administration allowed its legal team to repeatedly file documents across a multi-year period asserting that "no public record is hidden" and "there were no responsive public records," while simultaneously holding a locked archive of internal email communications regarding the settlement. In a sworn affidavit dated September 26, 2023, submitted to the Office of the Right to Know Ombudsman, Stephen R. Fournier asserted that the Council's specific email responses to a legal inquiry constituted the mechanism that "led to the Town's settlement approval". However, in subsequent litigation, the Town’s legal counsel shifted theories, asserting as a matter of fact that the Town Manager was authorized to enter the agreement completely unilaterally without any affirmative vote of the Town Council.

The Legal Implication: Every individual motion, objection, and appellate brief that contains a known misrepresentation constitutes a distinct violation. Advancing incompatible factual descriptions of where the baseline legal authority originated across different state oversight bodies, and permitting a massive volume of misleading assertions to move through the courts to mask an off-the-record email quorum, represents a calculated, continuous scheme to disrupt the baseline administration of justice.

3. Accomplice Liability for Tampering with Public Records (RSA 641:7 & RSA 626:8)
A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, they aid, agree to aid, or solicit such person in planning or committing it.

The Proliferated Conduct: Retained counsel continuously drafted and submitted formal "Statements of Material Facts" and post-hearing briefs claiming that the Town Council “did not approve the Settlement Agreement” while concurrently filing opposing documents declaring it was “not accurate that the Town Council did not approve the settlement agreement”.

The Legal Implication: Because court pleadings become permanent governmental records upon submission, filtering contradictory, fabricated, or deceptive "facts" into a tribunal constitutes tampering with the verity of an official record under RSA 641:7. By funding this multi-forum litigation strategy with over $60,000 in taxpayer resources and signing affidavits to buttress these defenses, Stephen R. Fournier acts as a statutory accomplice to the systematic distortion of the judicial record.

4. False Swearing by Subscribing to Structural Contradictions (RSA 641:2)
A person commits false swearing if, in an official proceeding, they make a statement under oath or affirm the truth of a statement previously made which they do not believe to be true.

The Proliferated Conduct: The administration repeatedly submitted verification of its pleadings under the guise that each narrative shift was a routine legal clarification. They swore to the court that the Town Manager operated with total unilateral independence under town code, while simultaneously utilizing the hidden consensus of council email responses to validate the underlying corporate intent of the town. While the administration maintained under oath that no public "meeting," "deliberation," or "vote" took place under the definitions of RSA 91-A, they concurrently relied upon the legal weight of those hidden email responses to bind the municipality to a contract.

The Legal Implication: Swearing to the validity of mutually exclusive factual premises across parallel dockets violates RSA 641:2. Proliferating scores of misleading re-characterizations—such as transforming a rolling email vote into a mere "informational consultation" to evade an RSA 91-A violation—does not constitute zealous advocacy; it is the compounding of false swearing by proxy.

Conclusion
Allowing a massive volume of deceptive statements to move uncorrected through the New Hampshire judicial system is a severe perversion of public office. When a Town Manager stands by as their administration flips factual narratives to survive summary judgment, they convert the legal process into a vehicle for official deception. True municipal transparency cannot survive when local leaders treat the truth as a variable, adjusting the facts to match whatever defensive posture keeps them insulated from public oversight.