Investigators from the Manchester City Solicitor’s Office have concluded the investigation started by a complaint by Ward 10 Alderman Phil Greazzo regarding whether or not Alderman at-Large Joe Kelly Levasseur violated the city charter by obtaining information from the Manchester Dog Park Association’s insurance agency. According to Assistant City Solicitor Tom Arnold and Staff Attorney Peter Chisea, while “a reasonable person could conclude that Alderman obtained…information on a purported lapse in coverage in his capacity as a city official,” the information obtained was neither private nor privileged because the contract between the city and the association is a “public contract,” subjecting such things as lapse history, to public scrutiny. The city’s attorney’s argued that any citizen was entitled to the information Levasseur obtained because the general public has a “legitimate interest to information regarding whether an agreement concerning the use of public property is being properly administered.”
Arnold and Chisea stated they were unable to determine the truthfulness of Levasseur’s statements about his conversation with Aspen Insurance employee Karen Case because agency owner, neither agency owner William Infantine nor the MDPA would permit Case to testify about the information she provided Levasseur. Absent any legal citation identifying the “unnamed Federal law” referenced by Infantine as the basis for his refusal, Arnold and Chisea concluded the information Levasseur obtained was subject to the state’s Right to Know Law.
The investigators’ report contained contradictory information regarding whether or not the association’s policy lapsed. On the one hand, they reference Levasseur’s claim that Case told him the policy had lapsed. On the other, they note that all of the documents they’d received as part of the investigation show there was no lapse in coverage; a point emphasized by Arnold’s issuance of a second letter confirming that for the Committee on Accounts. This begs a number of questions about the conduct of an alderman whose public statements are not supported by the documentation.
While the report does not recommend any changes to administrative procedures. It does urge city officials to request information through appropriate department channels.
We were unable to obtain comments from either Greazzo or Infantine prior to publishing this article.
Here are the letters issued just moments ago.
The attorney has spoken. There was never a lapse in insurance coverage
as the officials at the MDPA maintained all along. The enemies of the
dog park knew this and still insisted on using these known false
allegations to damage the reputation of a fine public servant prior to
the most recent election. They defamed a good man repeatedly and now
everyone knows that they were complete and total liars of the highest
order. Anyone who would trust any of these proven liars in any
position of responsibility is taking a very serious risk. They cannot
prevail in the arena of ideas and are reduced to outright lies in order
to have any hope of success….
From the Union Leader: “There were also tense words between Greazzo and Peter Chiesa, the city attorney who handled the review.
He
insisted that the MDPA itself had impeded his office’s ability to
determine whether Levasseur lied and divulged confidential information
when he said at a previous aldermen’s meeting that the MDPA’s insurance
had lapsed. The insurance is a key component of the agreement under
which the MPDA is allowed to use city land for the dog park.
“Were
not making a determination whether there was a lapse or not. The
material provided by the MDPA are not sufficient for me to conclude
whether there was a lapse or not,” Chiesa said. “Aspen (the MDPA’s
insurance agent) wouldn’t talk to us, and the dog park won’t let Aspen
talk to us.”
So, Phil Greazzo and I assume Tammy Simmons and their politician allies on the board of the Manchester Dog Park Association would not allow the City Solicitor’s office contact Aspen Insurance to determine if there actually had been a lapse in insurance coverage. Richard H. Girard (a.k.a. John Watson) was there, and did not report his critical revelation on his blog or on today’s news feed. Just why would the MDPA not allow the City Solicitor to determine whether or not there had been a lapse? Because there had been a lapse?
Sorry to burst your bubble, old chap, but I am not Mr. Girard.
We are so fortunate to have Hopwood defending us from the Dog Park’s evil cabal which uses its massive hidden wealth to dispense political favors and control the entire city. The fact of the matter remains: Hopwood and his ilk have known all along that there was no basis for their claims about the insurance coverage of the park or claims of fiscal mismanagement or misappropriation of funds. They knew these allegations were untrue and yet they repeated them over and over in the run up to the most recent elections to smear a fine public servant. Taxpayers will soon bemoan what Hopwood and his skulking cohorts hath wrought.