O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
Rich Girard’s recent defense of Alderman Joe Kelly Levasseur presents a false choice: either elected officials are free to hurl insults at city staff without consequence, or the city risks trampling the First Amendment. This framing oversimplifies the issue and ignores a basic truth: accountability and civility in public service are not unconstitutional, they are essential to good government.
Levasseur’s comments toward Health Director Anna Thomas weren’t simply spirited criticism of policy. They were personal attacks—calling her “queen” and “Fauci” and questioning her residency in Concord as if that made her incapable of serving Manchester residents. When a department head is singled out in this manner, especially in a charged public debate, it creates a hostile environment not only for the individual but for all staff who are tasked with implementing the city’s laws and ordinances.
Free Speech Has Limits in Government Settings
Girard argues that the board’s proposed rules amount to unconstitutional prior restraint. But free speech is not absolute, especially within a government workplace. Courts have long upheld that municipalities can adopt codes of conduct to ensure safe and non-hostile work environments for their employees. The City of Manchester already prohibits workplace harassment for its staff; extending those protections to apply when staff interact with elected officials is both logical and lawful.
No one is stopping Levasseur—or any alderman—from questioning policy decisions, pressing for transparency, or demanding accountability. What is being restricted is the use of ridicule, name-calling, and innuendo that undermines the professionalism of city government. That is not censorship. That is the standard of decorum expected of public servants.
Real Questions Deserve Real Answers
Girard is right about one thing: the underlying issues in “Picklegate” deserve scrutiny. Was Daniel Mowery properly contacted before receiving a cease-and-desist letter? Why did baked goods receive different treatment than pickles? These are legitimate questions, and the public deserves answers.
But Levasseur’s chosen method—mocking the city’s top health official on Facebook and in public meetings—doesn’t get us closer to the truth. It distracts from the substantive issues by turning the spotlight onto his behavior rather than the department’s practices. When the debate devolves into name-calling, the policy questions get lost in the noise.
If Levasseur genuinely wanted answers, he could have filed formal inquiries, requested documentation, or pressed for a public hearing focused on the ordinance itself. Instead, he personalized the issue and undermined the credibility of a professional charged with protecting public health. That doesn’t hold government accountable; it weakens it.
The Role of the Board
It is entirely within the authority of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to establish rules of conduct for its members. In fact, it would be negligent not to. Manchester residents expect their aldermen to engage in tough oversight while maintaining the integrity of the office. Allowing elected officials to disparage staff without consequence sends the opposite message—that the loudest insult wins the day.
The proposed resolution doesn’t silence criticism. It sets a baseline: elected officials must focus on policy, not personal attacks. They can still question why Mowery wasn’t contacted, why baked goods were exempt, and why certain communications weren’t answered. But they cannot demean public employees with mocking titles or insinuations about their personal lives. That is not a loss for democracy. It is a win for professionalism.
Protecting Staff, Protecting the City
Girard frames this as a battle over free speech, but it is equally about workplace protections. Public employees should not have to endure personal ridicule from elected officials simply for doing their jobs. A hostile work environment erodes morale, drives away talented professionals, and exposes the city to liability.
Moreover, this is not about silencing dissent. It is about creating conditions where dissent can be taken seriously. When criticism is delivered respectfully, it is more likely to lead to thoughtful answers and constructive reform. When it comes wrapped in insults, it undermines both the message and the messenger.
The Real Threat to Democracy
The real threat to democracy is not that aldermen might be held to standards of conduct. It is the erosion of trust that happens when government officials treat serious policy debates as an opportunity for cheap shots. Levasseur’s rhetoric may play well on Facebook, but it does not serve the residents of Manchester who deserve solutions, not showmanship.
Yes, the pickle controversy raises valid concerns. But if Manchester is to resolve them—and maintain confidence in its institutions—it needs debate that is rigorous, respectful, and focused on facts. The Board’s effort to rein in personal attacks is not an affront to democracy. It is a necessary step to preserve it.
David Preece is a representative of the NH State House, Hillsborough County District, 17 in Manchester. He has been an urban planner for the public and private sectors for 44 years and is also a produced and published playwright, screenwriter, and children’s picture book author.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment using the DISQUS app below. Got issues of your own? Submissions are welcome. Send to publisher@inklink.news, subject line: The Soapbox.