By Buck Fuller
This seems like a straight-forward question with an obvious answer. Why bother asking this? Because there are interesting issues at stake.
In Part III, we will explore who lost on Election Day.
Obviously, Who Lost:
There were 17 candidates for City Council. Of these, eight lost. Three were newcomers. Five were running again for the City Council after having lost in 2021. They were the so-called Becksted 5: Rick Becksted, former Mayor, Peter Whelan, Paige Trace, Esther Kennedy and Petra Huda.
A Bitter Pill
It may seem like a bitter pill for these five to lose again to the same slate of Councilors who beat them two years ago. Let’s face it, the re-elected City Councilors were swept in with outside political forces: at least three political action committees (PACs), continued Progress Portsmouth involvement and other regional and national donors. Such a one-sided cabal means that in 2023 these efforts helped keep voters from being fully informed of the issues at stake.
The City Manages the News Flow
City management has effectively kept the financial fallout of the past two years from the public’s eye. The taxpayer will discover the impact over the coming weeks and months.
Just last week, City taxpayers learned of a budget-busting proposal to build a new police station. Now the price tag has climbed to over $70 million.
And the long-awaited increase in real estate taxes from the increased FY2024 City budget was just announced. That’s a 6.1% cost increase, about double the current rate of inflation!
Maybe it’s only those familiar with City management’s shenanigans who see its unchecked budget growth and the compliant role of City Council. Cynicism, frustration and anger may seem like a reasonable reaction.
Beyond the “B5”
But what justifiably upset the B5 are issues that will hit home with the taxpayer over the coming years. We highlighted these in Part I. To repeat: “two years of budget increases adding 36 new full-time employees (FTEs), mostly in Administration; outstanding McIntyre lawsuits with Michael Kane, payouts to Redgate-Kane of $2.5 million, lost opportunities with the McIntyre building and property; several sweetheart deals with other developers; and so forth.” There are other matters, such as the ongoing pollution of South Mill Pond and the unfunded update of the Water Master Plan. Add the lack of transparency and the continued threat of Portsmouth’s historical nature.
As taxpayers begin to see these issues and others go unaddressed or poorly addressed in this coming Council term, perhaps they too will be upset. It is the taxpayer who is the biggest loser in this election, but it may take a while for that realization to hit home.
A Lack of Expertise and Experience
As nice as it may be to have younger people and fresh faces on the City Council, what’s missing is experience and fiscal expertise. There are no City Councilors who can “follow the money.” A little grey hair might be nice, but it’s the financial awareness that’s needed.
It is only by “following the money” that sense can be made of the chaotic City’s finances. In our opinion, the Finance Director should be able to demonstrate linear thinking and straight-line accounting. Today’s municipal budgets demonstrate a lack of rigorous accounting. Sums move too easily from one account to another without following the policy guidelines that must originate from the City Council. But the present City Council is incapable of asking tough questions or exerting fiscal discipline.
We think the Mayor knows the Council lacks these abilities. Certainly he lacks these abilities. The taxpayer will eventually awaken to this fact and force a change. Until then, City management will continue to take advantage of controlling the fiscal narrative. And the Council will be ineffective in controlling City management.
Maybe the New Auditor Will Blow the Whistle?
In this lopsided game of win-lose, the referee needs to blow the whistle and throw a flag or two on the play. We need to have the new auditor, CLA, enforce discipline. But the City management is adept at controlling the matter. Instead of a broad-ranging audit, the City has contracted with CLA to only conduct a financial audit.
This audit is very limited in scope. It’s as if the referee must look the other way in the case of personal fouls.
The public should watch carefully for the sorts of recommendations CLA delivers to the City and the type of opinion it provides. If it is a “qualified” opinion, it would show that the auditor was unable to deliver a “clean” opinion of the City’s financial statements because there are significant problems with management overriding financial controls or improperly recognizing revenue.
The Taxpayer Loses in Much Bigger Ways
No Advocate
The City’s taxpayers lose out in a much larger way. Taxpayers no longer have Councilors as advocates to voice neighborhood concerns. The Council is now a slate, not individuals. That means residents lose their ability to lean on individual Councilors for a sympathetic ear.
It seems like a remote possibility that individual Councilors will step out of bounds and assist individual residents or groups of residents with problems that don’t fit into the Council’s narrative. For example, with all the City Councilors supporting the conversion of the Sherburne School into workforce housing, Pannaway Manor residents must realize they have no sympathy on the Council for their concerns. Suddenly, residents in such a spot will find life to be lonely.
No Friends in Higher Places
By allowing the City to go from “purple” (a mix of Republicans and Democrats) to “blue” (all Democrats) to progressive, the City is no longer able to get the attention of centrist politicians in the region and in Concord. Without such representation, members of the Executive Council, the Governor and the State House have little interest in winning favor with or connecting with the Portsmouth voters and local politicians.
The Portsmouth Taxpayer No Longer Has a Voice
Consider the cruise ship coming to Portsmouth next year. The City Council was clueless. The City had no seat at the table! The decision to accept the ships was made by regional and State powers without the City’s input! Why involve the City when it is now a progressive, self-absorbed island, isolated from the State? No need to build political bridges with the City. There’s nothing to be gained for the State.
Money Dries Up
How about those funding goodies, such as money for sound barriers? They are at risk of drying up. The schedule for installing the barriers can now slip with no advocacy and connection. Such capital projects go underfunded or even unfunded. The priorities slip and projects are delayed. The local taxpayer is forced to issue more bonds. Other issues, such as the resolution of the McIntyre project, get decided in ways that are less favorable to the City. Access by the Mayor to sources of power and money in Concord or Washington, D.C. becomes limited or non-existent. We have seen all of this take place over the past two years.
Influence Dries Up
Now comes development at Pease. Perhaps as a local favor, City Manager Conard ignores the regional impact of Michael Kane’s new warehouse or the huge new 800,000 square foot Lonza building. Surrounding communities such as Newington and Greenland have no voice in these projects because Conard ignores the need for impact studies.
In the City’s vacuum, the State is ready to exert its authority to control such development. Suddenly, the City and its Council become irrelevant and the State takes over the political process. Portsmouth taxpayers become isolated (again) and no longer have a voice.
No More Favors
Just imagine if the Governor thinks, as a Republican, that he could “buy” a State House seat or a few City Council seats by opening the funding faucet for the new pipelines under Great Bay. Suddenly, the City’s costs might be reduced, from, say, $20 million to $18 million or $15 million or less. That would go a long way to controlling the City’s taxpayer burden. Instead, the Governor looks at the re-elected City Council and sees fewer opportunities to influence future election outcomes. Providing such largess to the City no longer makes sense to those who control the State’s purse strings.
The same situation pertains to other issues, such as the McIntyre, where the City does not hold many, if any cards. With a heavily PAC-influenced election, the City’s power base is highly compromised. We all pay dearly.
Winners and Losers
The re-elected City Council is thrilled with the outcome of the Election. City management is doing somersaults in the City Hall. But if the taxpayer and voter reflect for a moment, they should have at least some “buyer’s remorse.” The outcome will be regrettable and adverse to the taxpayer. Money, power and influence are lost.
