HOOKSETT, N.H. – When is a resident of a town truly a resident of a town? Under normal circumstances, that question may become a debate on the deeper meaning of civics, but at Wednesday night’s Hooksett Town Council Meeting, it became a source of rancor, confusions and allegations of wrongdoing.
In a 4-3 vote the Town Council found that Alex Walczyk is a domiciled resident of Hooksett and entitled to be an At-Large member of the Town Council under the town’s charter. Walczyk’s eligibility to serve on the council came into question during the May 13 meeting of the board when allegations arose that he was now actually a Manchester resident.
At Wednesday’s meeting, John Durand (District 4) said he began to become concerned over the possibility of Walczyk’s true residence when Durand said Walczyk told him he was spending a significant amount of time with his girlfriend in Manchester. Later, Clark Karolian (District 5) allegedly followed Walczyk and took pictures to determine whether the allegations were true, including pictures of a parking sticker on Walczyk’s car available only to residents of the apartment complex where Walcyzk’s girlfriend lives.
A motion to go into non-public session under the auspices of an exception to the state’s right to know law, RSA 91-A, was ruled out of order by Town Council Chairman James Sullivan (At-Large) on several points. First, under RSA 91-A:3 (II-a), investigations during non-public sessions are only held regarding employees, with elected officials not meeting the definition of employees in his opinion. Also, under RSA 91-A:3 (II-c), there is an exception for elected officials regarding matters which if discussed in public would likely adversely affect the reputation of any person.
Sullivan tried to report what he discovered in a three-question conversation on May 14 with Walczyk, but a motion was made challenging Sullivan’s decision not to go into non-public and Sullivan also made a motion asking to table the overruling, fearing it would violate 91-A. When Sullivan asked for a roll call vote, it was unclear what motion was being acted upon, leading Durand to express his frustration at Walczyk leaving the May 13 meeting early, letting the question linger until tonight.
At this point, members of the Council began to yell over each other and Sullivan called a recess.
Following the recess, the seconds for the motion to challenge the ruling not to go into non-public as well as the motion to table the challenge were withdrawn and Sullivan revealed the answers to the three questions he asked Walczyk. First, did Walczyk believe say he was a resident of Hooksett? (Yes.) Second, where did Walczyk live in Hooksett? (7 Heritage Dr., although Sullivan reported it as 7 Carriage Dr.). Third, has Walczyk been out of Hooksett for more than a month over the past year? (No.)
Under Hooksett’s Town Charter, Councilors must live in the district they seek to represent for at least a year prior to Election Day unless they move to another part of Hooksett while in office, in which case they can retain their seat for up to a year. Councilors can also be removed for missing three straight regularly scheduled meetings, missing a quarter of regularly scheduled meetings in a calendar year and other items ranging from embezzlement or other crimes.
Members of the Council then asked Town Clerk Todd Ranier questions about residency, domiciles and whether Walczyk was a registered voter in the town of Hooksett. Ranier said he had not checked to see if Walczyk was a voter since he was an incumbent on the board and the town’s Registrars of the Checklist do not check to see if someone is still a voter unless they have not voted in four straight elections and re-registration to vote is not necessary. He added that a person’s legal domicile, or where they can vote and run for office, is determined by wherever that person believes they are living most of the time, and can be proven by something as simple as a piece of mail.
Karolian then said that the issue of domicile was irrelevant as the Town Charter says that a Councilor must be a resident “at all times” to be eligible to be on the council.
Randall LaPierre (District 6) then said that the current process improper, as the Town Charter also says that an investigation must be initiated by the Council with 48 hours advance notice before any deliberation can occur. He added that he would not deliberate upon any evidence obtained outside of a Council-sanctioned investigation, referring to Karolian’s personal investigation. Town Administrator Andre Garron later told the board that he discussed the topic with legal counsel and agreed that an investigation would need to be agreed up by the board before any action could be taken regarding Walczyk’s possible removal.
After more back-and-forth between Durand, David Boutin (Ward 2) and Karolian, Sullivan threatened to recess the meeting again and Boutin made a motion that Walczyk was not in violation of the Town Charter and should remain on the Town Council. This led Karolian accuse Boutin of “white washing” and “being a politician,” with Durand interrupting Boutin’s responses.
At this point Sullivan took another recess, followed by discussion on Boutin’s motion, which was eventually seconded by Cliff Jones (At-Large). Sullivan then opened the floor to discussion.
Roger Duhaime (District 3) said he was uncertain of the allegations against Walczyk, but would support an investigation and that everyone should follow the rules even though he would prefer to be doing other things to help the town.
“I don’t like this kind of behavior, I want this done properly,” he said.
Durand found Boutin’s motion to be improper since an investigation had not been made to ascertain Walczyk’s true address.
Jones said he would base his vote on Ranier’s information and Walczyk’s answer to Sullivan that he lived in Hooksett. Vice-Chair Timothy Tsantoulis felt a vote prior to an investigation could theoretically deny Walczyk’s rights and subvert the charter, stating that the process had “the smell of a kangaroo court.”
LaPierre felt an investigation should occur, not because he believed Walczyk should be removed, but because an investigation was his right under the charter.
Karolian said that he did not wish Walczyk any harm, but wished the Council to verify the information he obtained in a Council investigation.
Boutin said he did not see the point of further investigation after two meetings on this topic and Walczyk waived the right to say anything. Boutin also accused Karolian of acting improperly in attempting to obtain evidence that Walczyk lived in Manchester, leading to more tension.
Boutin’s motion saying Walczyk was not in violation of the charter and is eligible to be on the Council had the support of Boutin, Walczyk, Duhaime and Jones. Karolian, LaPierre and Durand voted against the motion while Sullivan and Tsantoulis abstained.
Karolian then asked why Walczyk was allowed to vote, with Sullivan saying it was allowed under the charter, with Karolian attempting to then trying to make a motion asking for an official Council investigation.
At this point, Boutin said he was ready to leave the meeting and Sullivan appeared to call for a roll call on Karolian’s motion even though it was not clear if there was a second, but Durand refused to do so. At this point, Sullivan called for a motion to adjourn. Even though it failed, enough of the Councillors began to leave anyway that a quorum could not be maintained.
Several minutes later, a flustered Rainer chastised the remaining members of the board, noting that Town Tax Collector Kimberly Blichmann had been waiting for time-sensitive decisions from the board in non-public session scheduled later in the meeting that now could not be taken.