The financial management improprieties alleged in the Newmarket forensic audit center on the actions of the town's former administrator and finance director and that can't be forgotten.
The financial management improprieties alleged in the Newmarket forensic audit center on the actions of the town’s former administrator and finance director and that can’t be forgotten.
However, as the town tries to move forward, it is unavoidable to look at the responsibilities and actions of the Town Council. It apparently failed in its duties to the taxpayers.
The Exeter News-Letter is not calling for the resignation of the councilors who sat through the alleged misuse of residents’ tax dollars on their watch. That is up to the townspeople. But the News-Letter is going to state a loss of faith in several of them given the extent of alleged misuse of finances and frankly how they reacted before and after the audit.
Town Administrator Alphonse Dixon was an employee of the town and the townspeople entrusted the Town Council to ensure proper management of the town’s resources. The council failed to do so and it appears Dixon was allowed to run amok.
The only councilor to stand head and shoulders above the rest in demanding the audit be done immediately is Vice Chairman Dana Glennon. He should be lauded for his persistence. Glennon, following the release of the audit, called it “an uphill battle ... I feel vindicated because of what myself and the petitioners did. (It’s) unfortunate it took such a long time and such a great expense.”
It’s a sad failure on the part of the council that it was an “uphill battle” to find rampant abuse. Not all councilors deserve scrutiny, but Chairman Brian Hart, Wilfred Hamel, Jennifer Jarvis and Michael LaBranche do.
Hart, who spoke in favor of renewing Dixon’s contract in 2005, said he acknowledged some responsibility for the mismanagement. Glennon, by the way, tried to fight that contract extension. Hart went on to say about the audit results, “The criticism seems magnified because people want to lay blame.”
This should not be twisted around. The townspeople want accountability, not blame. It’s sorely missing. Hart admitted to not fully understanding the citizens’ audit request. That’s unacceptable. The petitioners clearly suspected exactly what the audit turned up. How could the petitioners be so right and the councilors so naïve?
Hamel did not support the forensic audit. “I was against the audit because it was a small group of people with the petition and the rest of the taxpayers have to pay for it. I am a taxpayer and a senior citizen. I was against spending the money.” The seniors and all taxpayers paid for body makeovers and a travel budget for Dixon larger than the city of Portsmouth’s and several other highly questionable expenditures.
Jarvis, while council chairwoman this past May, said following a far less encompassing audit that “Although I am frustrated and disappointed by the errors that have occurred, the problems have been identified and corrected.” We said then that her reasoning was just not good enough and the forensic audit proves it wasn’t.
LaBranche, who joined the council in May 2006, said this past May that Dixon’s expenditures were not really of concern to him at the time and to the best of his knowledge, Dixon had explained the expenditures. LaBranche did however in the spring say “This is something that I feel will not go away until we make it go away, and (the forensic audit) is the only way that I can see we can make it go away.”
Improper financial management of town resources, which could result in criminal charges, is not going to go away any time soon. And none of the above actions instill much faith in the aforementioned councilors. While the News-Letter is not calling for their resignations, it’s hoped each councilor will do just as much as possible to earn back any lost trust. It’s unclear whether the townspeople will offer up renewed trust and who could blame them if they didn’t?