Scathing Rebuke: How Newmarket Officials and Attorneys Spent Taxpayer Money to Hide the Truth

A Scathing Rebuke: How Newmarket Officials and Attorneys Spent Taxpayer Money to Hide the Truth

This record reveals a disgraceful misuse of public power.

Officials of the Town of Newmarket, led by the Town Manager and advised by outside counsel, spent approximately $60,000 in taxpayer funds not to correct violations of New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, but to conceal them—through secret agreements, false narratives, and untested sworn statements.

Public service is not a license to operate in the dark.
It is an oath to tell the truth.

The Officials Who Owed the Public Candor—and Didn’t

At the center of this record is Steve Fournier, the Town Manager, who responded in writing to a Right-to-Know request by asserting that all “discussion, deliberation, and approval” of a settlement occurred through a private “consultation with legal counsel,” and therefore no public records existed.

That assertion—made in an official RTK response—was later contradicted by admissions in court establishing that:

• no Town Council meeting occurred,
• no agenda item was posted,
• no vote was taken,
• and no minutes exist.

When a public official puts a false narrative into writing to deny public access to records, the issue is no longer a technical RTK dispute. It implicates false public documents and falsification concerns under RSA 641—questions that have never been tested under oath.

The Town Council’s Silence—and Complicity

The Newmarket Town Council bears responsibility for what it allowed.

No council meeting approved the settlement.
No public vote authorized it.
No minutes documented it.

Yet the Town later claimed approval existed—while refusing to identify where or how. Councilors cannot evade accountability by remaining silent while staff and counsel advance narratives that contradict public process. The Right-to-Know Law exists precisely to prevent this kind of decision-making by omission.

The Attorneys Who Carried the Narrative Forward

The Town’s outside counsel at Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella did not correct the record. They propagated it.

• Brianna Matuszko submitted pleadings to the trial court and an Answer to the Supreme Court that treated assumed authority and approval as settled fact, while omitting the dispositive truth that no public body ever approved the agreement.
• John Ratigan submitted an answer to the RTK Ombudsman that relied on a sworn affidavit repeating the same false narrative—asking a tribunal to accept as fact what the record later undermined.
• Christopher Hawkins, simultaneously serving as Town Moderator and associated with the firm defending the Town, pursued legal fees against a citizen based on a record riddled with unresolved factual disputes—after admissions in open court contradicted earlier claims.

Attorneys are officers of the court. Their oath demands candor, especially when public money and public rights are at stake. Repeating a narrative that collapses under the transcript—then seeking fees to punish those who exposed it—crosses a line.

$60,000 to Hide, Not to Fix

The public record shows approximately $60,000 in taxpayer funds expended:

• to defend secrecy rather than cure RTK violations,
• to advance false or misleading statements to tribunals,
• to avoid evidentiary testing of sworn claims,
• and to pursue sanctions and fees against a resident demanding transparency.

That is not stewardship.
It is suppression financed by the public.

Oaths Were Taken—And Broken

Public officials swear to uphold the law.
Attorneys swear to tell the truth to tribunals.

When:

• public business is conducted outside public view,
• records are avoided rather than created,
• false narratives are put in writing,
• affidavits are contradicted by admissions,
• and courts are asked to enforce outcomes without fact-finding,

those oaths are violated in substance, even if never adjudicated.

Impunity does not transform wrongdoing into legitimacy.

The Bottom Line

This is not a good-faith dispute over interpretation.
It is a pattern:

1. RTK violations exposed
2. A secret settlement paid with taxpayer money
3. Written denials claiming “consultation” replaced public process
4. Sworn affidavits repeating that claim
5. Transcript admissions proving no approval occurred
6. Appellate filings omitting the truth
7. Fee requests aimed at silencing accountability

Newmarket residents deserve better. New Hampshire deserves better.

Until these facts are tested under oath and confronted honestly, the record remains incomplete—and the public trust remains broken.