MANCHESTER, NH. APRIL 23, 2025—Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais has rejected a request from Girard at Large to divulge details of his proposed budget, which he presented to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) at a special meeting on March 37, 2025.  According to the city charter, the mayor must present his budget by March 31 each year.  The mayor’s budget is the default budget that goes into effect if the BMA fails to adopt any alternative by the second Tuesday in June.  The aldermen have until June 30 to adopt a budget if a budget passed by the board is vetoed by the mayor.  Last year, Ruais asked the board to veto his own budget proposal to gain extra time to work on the budget, which, at 3.82%, included the largest tax hike in a generation.

The day after his March 27 address, Girard at Large requested the budget packet presented to the BMA.  It was received shortly thereafter.  On March 29, Girard at Large requested the “budget book;” a document that provides line item detail on spending and revenue projections.  Interestingly, we were told it wouldn’t be available until departments had input their information into the system, which begged the question as to how the mayor could present his budget, including the summary spending and revenues without the line item detail from the departments.  That material was not received until April 15, nearly two weeks after the deadline originally given.

Having reviewed the documents, it was clear that the spending outlined in the mayor’s presentation could not be identified or isolated within the documents received.  Therefore, during the April 15 public hearing on the budget, Girard at Large publisher Rich Girard raised several questions regarding the mayor’s spending plans and revenue projections, noting that the information being requested was pursuant to RSA 91-a, New Hampshire’s “Right to Know” law. Girard budget testimony 04152025

The following day, he forwarded the request for information to the mayor, copied to City Clerk Matthew Normand, requesting a response.  Later the same day, he sent a subsequent email requesting line item detail on where the mayor put that $7 million in the budget to fund the personnel classification and compensation study.”

Neither email was acknowledged until April 22, when the following email was received from Ruais’ communications director, Carole Alfano:

We are writing to confirm that this Office received inquiries from you via both your testimony at the recent BMA meeting on April 15th and your email to this Office on April 16th.

In reviewing the request, and in consultation with the Office of the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, a determination was made that your questions do not come within the ambit of 91-A, we responded on April 14th by providing documents detailing the line item budget, as requested, to wit:

  • FY 26 Budget-Benefit Expenditures Report
  • FY 26 Budget- Department Expenditures Reports
  • FY 26 Budget- Department Revenue Reports

The documents sent were those received on April 15, from which none of the requested information can be gleaned.

Girard at Large sent the following email in response:

So I’m clear, the mayor is refusing to provide the following requested information about his budget:
  • Itemization (departmental and non-departmental) of where the $7 million he put in the budget to fund raises recommended by the personnel classification and compensation study (PCCS).
  • What  PCCS recommendation he funded (I recall there were 3 options presented by the board)
  • Whether he intends to negotiate for those increases with the unions or simply convey them through the budget.
  • What line items (departmental and non-departmental) were increased, and by how much,  to fund the contractual raises he mentioned in his budget address.
  • How many grant funded positions, in total, were transferred from grant funding to the general fund, and in what departments.
    • What’s the reason for the $80K increase in the economic development office.
  • How the $200K added to the fire department is going to be used as a SAFER grant offset (i.e., will it be spent in the operating budget?  If so, on what?  If not, where is it going to go?)
  • What, specifically, the additional $1.125M for the police department will be used for.
  • Why the MTA operating subsidy went up 21%
  • The basis for increasing DPW revenues by 5%.
The documents you attached, which were previously sent, are not responsive to the questions asked as they cannot be used to isolate expenses added to the budget, nor do they explain what’s been requested.
While we can debate what is and is not subject to RSA 91-a, it would seem that refusing to provide the requested information displays a lack of transparency that leaves the taxpayer in the dark as to the mayor’s methods and motives.  If the mayor wishes to provide this information before noon tomorrow, it will be included in the article that is now being written.
Regards,
Richard H. Girard
Publisher

For whatever reason, Ruais has refused multiple requests for this information, which is vital if aldermen, never mind taxpayers, are to understand what the mayor’s budget actually does and why it does it.  While assumptions might be made about some of the mayor’s intentions, based on the raw, undefined numbers, they cannot be confirmed without the requested detail.  What is clear is that the mayor’s lack of transparency has deprived the public of critical information needed to understand or question his spending recommendations and the costs they may bear as a result in this and future fiscal years.

Note:  This article was held for three hours after the deadline given in our follow up email to Alfano to ensure Ruais had more than sufficient time to provide the requested information.