That Way We’ll Never Forget How Rotten City Hall Is
At the April 15, 2024, City Council meeting, calls for Councilor John Tabor to resign or be removed by the City Council were put forward by Portsmouth residents during the Public Comment section.
More specifically, Councilor Tabor’s March 18 confession and subsequent apology for his illegal conduct of asking a friend to delete emails related to the McIntyre project represented the third time (that we know of) that he has shared nonpublic information with an outside party.
See: It’s Time for Councilor John Tabor to Resign – He Admits to Criminal Activity
According to Section 3.14 of the City Charter, the City Council has the ability to remove Councilor Tabor. What are they waiting for, the next Ethics complaint to be filed?
Is that the best solution? Does it really solve the problem?
Councilor Tabor’s blatant violation of his Oath of Office is disturbing. This legally binding pledge is required of every town officer in the State of New Hampshire under Article 84 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
Quoting Stephen C. Buckley, Esq. writing for the New Hampshire Municipal Association:
“In general, not complying with the oath of office by not upholding the New Hampshire or US Constitution, or by not discharging public duties consistent with New Hampshire law and regulations, can be a basis for being removed from office. RSA 42:1/”
Here’s the timeline of his transgressions breaching RSA 42. A and B, Oath of Office.
August 21, 2021 – Confidential nonpublic McIntyre data was disclosed to a former City Councilor.
Councilor Tabor disclosed information from non-public McIntyre sub-committee meetings to another City Councilor (who was also employed by a competitor developer) at a time when the city was in litigation.
In an April 1, 2022, Portsmouth Herald article quoting an email from Councilor Tabor to McIntyre Committee Chair Peter Whelan, Tabor said: “Cliff asked me about McIntyre, and I told him we submitted some drawings and a narrative to NPS for preliminary feedback. I apologize if that was overstepping, but we’d discussed all that publicly in the July 15 meeting.”
Citing prior public discussions does not excuse the breach.
March 21, 2022 – Confidential nonpublic Audit Committee material was disclosed during a City Council meeting.
Councilor Tabor made comments and allegations related to the Audit Committee members divulging information that was discussed in a confidential non-public meeting.
Quoted in the same Portsmouth Herald article, Councilor Tabor acknowledged the confidential discussion pertaining to the March 21, 2022, meeting of the Audit Committee and City Council and said, “I really felt the need to be transparent to the public about what happened.”
March 24, 2022 – An Ethics Complaint by residents was filed.
This first complaint was based on the August 2021 and March 2022 admissions and subsequent apologies by Councilor Tabor related to disclosure of confidential, nonpublic meeting information and involved breach of the Oath of Office.
This breach was brought to the attention of the City Council during a meeting on April 4, 2022. It was ignored.
The Ethics Complaint was dismissed by Mayor McEachern and City Attorney Robert Sullivan.
March 18, 2024 – Confidential nonpublic information related to the McIntyre project was disclosed to friend Anne Weidman.
The acknowledgement became a part of the City Council meeting “apology,” as Tabor revealed that his communication to her had surfaced during legal discovery from the litigation with Sobow Square.
See: Hey Monte Tell us!
At this time, it is unknown whether the City’s liability insurance program will assume the legal expenses related to the newly filed Sobow Square emergency motion seeking to preserve evidence. This could mean thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars in costs would be borne by the Portsmouth taxpayers.
There are a few important points to consider.
Referencing the 2022 Portsmouth Herald article, Tabor maintained that the nonpublic information related to the Audit Committee had been disclosed after seeking “the advice of the city attorney prior to the council meeting and followed the legal department’s advice.”
BUT he failed to add that former City Attorney Sullivan’s legal advice also included the usual disclaimer ending with: “But the final decision is made by the individual Councilor”. Keeping in mind that even the “perception” of a conflict should be avoided.
Based on Mr. Tabor’s history outlined above, one might reasonably ask– Isn’t turning a blind eye to unethical behavior on the same footing as committing it, particularly when these deeds and the agreed-to group response have been discussed in one of the numerous City Council nonpublic sessions?
Of course it is.
This puts the entire City Council, yes, all eight other members including the Mayor, in the same boat.
The speakers at the April 15 City Council meeting calling for Councilor Tabor’s resignation also were former City Councilors who took the same Oath of Office. At times they had been in possession of nonpublic information but upheld that Oath. This gives their comments even more credibility.
RSA 42:1 A Part B “Oath of office” clearly states:
(b) The officer knew or reasonably should have known that the information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A:5, and that its divulgence would constitute an invasion of privacy, or would adversely affect the reputation of some person other than a member of the public body or agency, or would render proposed municipal action ineffective.
Tabor has repeatedly failed to comply with the “Oath of Office” he took to keep confidential, nonpublic information as being nonpublic. Now, his absolute failure to recognize the legal problem of destroying electronic records that are possibly involved with imminent litigation is astonishing.
His lack of judgment and discretion are remarkable. But these have been fostered by a culture in City Hall of arrogance and hubris.
Councilor Tabor is just the most apparent problem.
