The text below refers to these emails, which were requested in January and which were illegally withheld for six months, until we threatened a lawsuit and the town’s attorney forced Jack Dearborn to turn them over.
Intro
The NH Constitution, Part I, Article 8 says
Government…should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.
The preamble to New Hampshire RSA 91-A says
Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies and their accountability to the people
Jack Dearborn’s made up classification system
On 22 January 2021, I submitted an RSA 91-A request for various emails from the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. Several months later the town administrator gave me a few emails and said “this is all of them”. I specifically told the town administrator that I knew that there were emails between Jack Dearborn of the ZBA and Bruce Fillmore of the planning board that had not been turned over, but the town administrator said again that this was all of them.
Because the town would not obey the law, after six months I was forced to threaten a lawsuit, and only then did the town’s attorney force Jack Dearborn to hand over additional emails. Why did Jack Dearborn break the law – RSA 91-A – and not turn these emails over when I asked, and continue to hide them until the town’s attorney forced him to, six months after my request?
The emails in question, between Jack and Bruce Fillmore and no one else, were labelled – by Jack – as “attonney client confidential [sic]”. Since neither of Jack nor Bruce are attorneys and there was no attorney work product in the emails, why did Jack falsely label these emails as “attonney client confidential”?
These are not the only emails that Jack illegally withheld. On 15 March 2021 Jack emailed Kelly Dearborn-Luce and the town administrator and again tried to protect his email by claiming it was “attorney client confidential”. Since no one in that email was an attorney and there was no attorney work product in the emails, why did Jack falsely label that email as “attonney client confidential”?
The emails between Jack and Bruce Fillmore, were additionally labelled – by Jack – as “NEED TO KNOWF [sic]”, an entirely made-up classification system that Jack invented to prevent their dissemination to me, in response to my legal request. New Hampshire state law specifically says that emails like this are public records, and MUST be made available. Did the BoS authorize Jack to violate New Hampshire state law and create a secret classification system for his own emails, or did he do that on his own?
The information that the town lawyer turned over last week shows us that Jack has hidden emails and refused to obey RSA 91-A in the past. Are there any other emails that Jack has still not yet turned over?
The secret survey that Jack didn’t ask for (except he did)
On 22 January 2021 I filed an RSA 91-A request asking for various emails.
On 3 February 2021 Bruce emailed Naomi saying that there was a survey that he had emailed Jack, but added “I sent the plan to Jack…there was no email from Jack requesting said plan.”
This weird assertion that Jack didn’t ask for the survey, coming out of left field, seemed odd to me at the time, and yet there was nothing in the record to contradict it.
…until last week, when the town attorney forced Jack to turn over emails that he had previously illegally withheld.
In those emails we can see that Bruce mailed the survey to Jack at 11:33 am on 22 December 2020, and Jack asked for bigger contour labels six minutes later, at 11:39 am, and then Bruce sent a new version to Jack.
Why did Bruce Fillmore go out of his way to tell an untruth on 3 February in response to my 22 January RSA 91-A request and say that Jack had not asked for the survey, when we have an email record showing that he did, at 11:33 am on 22 December? What was Bruce trying to cover up?
It seems from the emails between Jack and Bruce that there are other emails in that thread still missing. When will the town turn over these other emails?
Who paid for the survey?
Once I became aware of the secret survey I submitted an RSA 91-A request on 27 March 2021 asking the town administrator for any invoices to the town for the survey, and she responded that there were no invoices.
Yet four months earlier, in an email on 22 December 2020 Bruce Fillmore asked Jack Dearborn “who should I invoice for this?”. As a side note, Bruce asking who he should invoice is further evidence that he was telling an untruth when he said that Jack did not ask for the survey. No one generates a survey because it struck them as an interesting idea, and then after doing the work, asks who to send the invoice to.
Presumably Jack responded to the “who should I invoice?” question with an answer, but Jack has not yet turned over that email or text. When will the town turn over the communication where Jack tells Bruce who to invoice?
Since the evidence is still being suppressed, I’ll ask for an answer here. Who was invoiced for this survey, and why? Did Bruce Fillmore invoice the town? If so, why was that invoice – a public record – not handed over to me when I asked for it? If Bruce Fillmore did not invoice the town, who did he invoice? If he invoiced the property owner at 271 Quaker street, then we have a clear violation of conflict of interest laws, as Mr Fillmore – in his role on the planning board – introduced and voted on a warrant article specifically designed for the advantage of the property owner at 271 Quaker street, who had just paid him money for services. Or did Jack Dearborn pay for the survey, perhaps as a favor to the property owner at 271 Quaker street? If so, then we have further evidence – on top of dozens of other pieces of evidence – that Mr Dearborn is biased in favor of the variance applicant.
Or did Jack ask Bruce Fillmore to hold off on invoicing for a few months as a conspiracy to keep the invoice out of town records in an attempt to evade legitimate questions?
Who paid for the survey?
Why was the survey (and the invoice) secret?
What specifically about the content of the email – where Bruce asked Jack who to invoice – caused it to be “need to know”?
Why was the property owner at 271 Quaker Street allowed to know about this survey, but I, also a citizen and a taxpayer, did not have a “need to know”?
Sham first site visit and secret second site visit
On 8 December 2020 Jack Dearborn delayed the variance hearing and organized a sham site visit. The purpose of the site visit was not actually to gather information about the site, but to delay the variance proceedings until Bruce Fillmore could introduce a special purpose warrant article for the benefit of the property owner at 271 Quaker Street. As I’ve explained in writing on on both 8 December 2020 and on 29 December 2020, during this fake site visit I asked Jack three times to walk the perimeter of the land with me, but he refused because, he explained, he and the property owner wanted to put the industrial building in a certain location, illegally in the setbacks, and not in other legal locations. 15 minutes after the site visit ended I sent registered mail to the ZBA and the BoS complaining about this.
My reason for wanting to visit the east side of the property was to demonstrate that there was an entirely legal and shallow sloped building site on the east side of the property. I infer that Jack did not want to visit the east side of the property for the exact same reason – he knew that if the ZBA saw a shallow sloped and legal building site, that would sink a variance application under the “other feasible methods” sub prong.
Or, at least, Jack did not want to visit the east side of the property when I was there to witness it.
The emails that Jack concealed in violation of law, and which were just recently revealed, show that there was a second site visit just three days after the first one – except this site visit was secret, and I was excluded from it. During this second secret site visit Jack did visit the eastern side of the property, including the gently sloped legal building area. Jack took pictures of it, but – realizing that I was right and he and the variance petitioner were wrong – hid the pictures, refused to turn them over, and pretended that the whole thing had never happened.
Why was this second site visit by multiple members of the ZBA and one party to the zoning dispute not publicly announced in accordance with New Hampshire open meeting laws?
Why were the emails – public documents – documenting this second site visit illegally kept hidden even after I asked for them?
Emails from secret site visit exposes falsification of records
Immediately after the first sham site visit I sent registered mail to the BoS and the ZBA complaining that Jack had refused to inspect 95% of the property, and quoted him as saying at the site visit that there was no need to visit the eastern side of the property because he and the property owner wanted to put the industrial building in a certain location, illegally in the setbacks.
In response to my complaint, Jack violated RSA 641:7 by falsifying public records and inventing an alternate – and false – narrative. In the falsified minutes of the site visit Jack wrote that it was impossible to walk the site because “there were 2 to 3 inches of ice on the ground”.
In response to this lie, I wrote to the BoS again on 29 December 2020 with weather records showing that there was fresh snow, not ice, on the ground on 8 December, and asked the town to correct Jack’s falsified records, but the town has ignored this request.
Now, though, by looking at the emails that Jack illegally withheld for six months, we can see not only Jack’s words indicating that the east side of the property was safe and easy to access, but we even have Jack’s own photos showing snow, and not ice, on the ground.
Let me say that again: Jacks’ own emails document that Jack’s minutes of the 8 Dec 2020 site visit are false.
I asked for the falsified minutes to be corrected seven months ago. The town gov has had records this whole time showing that I was correct and the minutes were falsified. Why has the town not corrected the falsified minutes?
Now that the evidence is public, will the town finally move to correct the falsified minutes?
“Need to Know” as evidence of conspiracy
Many of Jack’s emails were marked by Jack as “Need to Know”. Who did Jack think had a need to know about the secret survey and the secret site visit?
Obviously Jack, who has worked ceaselessly and violated laws to help the variance petition, had – in this scheme – a need to know.
It seems that Bruce Fillimore, the Planning board member who conspired with Jack on the secret survey and introduced a warrant article for the benefit of variance petitioner, had a need to know.
Another member of the ZBA, who joined Jack on the secret site visit, had a need to know.
Clearly the variance petitioner himself had a need to know about the site visit.
And just as clearly I, an abutter, at 275 Quaker street, had – in Jack’s opinion – no need to know. In fact, it is obvious that the entire point of Jack’s “need to know” classification system was to keep me in the dark.
RSA 629:3 says that a person is guilty of conspiracy if
with a purpose that a crime defined by statute be committed, he agrees with one or more persons to commit or cause the commission of such crime, and an overt act is committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.
In the conspiracy to push the variance through by extralegal means (official oppression RSA 643:1) were there any additional co-conspirators?
Dearborn must recuse
I have previously testified before the BoS explaining ZBA chair Jack Dearborn’s multiple violations of laws such as RSA 641:7 falsification of public records, RSA 91-A concealing public records, RSA 643:1 official oppression, RSA 629:3 conspiracy, and RSA 673:14 disqualification of a board member, and asked the BoS to remove Mr Dearborn from his appointed post because of his incompetence and corruption. The emails revealed on 9 July give further evidence that Mr Dearborn has violated laws and engaged in a cover-up, with the intent to privilege one party and harm another party. It has been clear for years now, to those following this case, that Mr Dearborn refuses to obey the law or to serve as a neutral party. The ZBA is re-hearing the variance application for 271 Quaker Street tomorrow (it was forced to rehear a case it already heard because of Jack’s incompetence and violation of law in the first hearing). Will the BoS do its duty to either remove Mr Dearborn from his post, or at the very least demand that he recuse himself from tomorr’ws meeting …Or does the BoS endorse Mr Dearborn’s approach to his duties, the law, and this case?
Mr Dearborn admitted, on camera, that he is unfamiliar with the state issued ZBA manual which explains the zoning laws of New Hampshire. If BoS does not remove ZBA chair Jack Dearborn before tomorrow’s meeting, will the BoS at least require that Mr Dearborn read the ZBA manual before tomorrow’s meeting?
Conclusion
While I haven’t finished reading through the town’s legal bills from the case, my first approximation is that the town has already spent $20,000 of taxpayer money dealing with the mess created by Jack’s corruption and incompetence. Should the ZBA illegally grant a variance tomorrow, I will immediately sue the town government yet again to force it to obey the law, and I expect that the town will spend another $20,000 defending – and losing – a second lawsuit. Do any members of the BoS care to explain to Weare taxpayers why they think that this is a good use of taxpayer money?
As a closing note: now that the coverup is starting to fall apart, there is going to be a natural desire on the part of Jack Dearborn and others to delete other emails and text messages that haven’t been turned over yet. I request that all members of all town boards retain all of their emails and texts, to avoid compounding the existing set of crimes with spoliation of evidence. Future lawsuits and subpoenas are capable of turning up deleted emails on servers, so no purpose would be served anyway.