WINCHESTER — Small-town politics can come with a big price tag.
The town of Winchester has spent a considerable amount of time
and money in recent years dealing with legal cases — 2.1 percent of last
year’s operating expenses. While one nearby town has spent more and
another much less on legal expenses, Winchester is unique due to the
variety of its cases.
Winchester spent $63,038 in fiscal 2012 on legal
expenses — the majority of it on court battles. Between fiscal 2009 and
2011, it spent $50,190, $39,436 and $34,866, respectively.
Town Administrator Joan C. Morel estimates only about
$8,000 of the 2012 sum was spent on costs unrelated to court cases,
such as appraisals or legal advice.
This year looks to be no different. The town’s legal
expenses are up to $12,419 since its fiscal year began in July. The
budgeted amount approved by voters is $25,000 for the entire year.
In the 2011 calendar year, Swanzey spent $15,390 in
legal expenses. The town has almost 2,900 more residents than Winchester
and its budget this year of $7.2 million is almost twice that of
Winchester’s. Since January, Swanzey has spent $9,723 on legal costs.
However, Swanzey Town Administrator Shane O’Keefe said the expenses are “entirely unpredictable” and occur incidentally.
Richmond is an example of that. In 2006, Winchester’s
neighbor to the east spent $7,565 on legal expenses out of a a budgeted
$4,900. Five years later in 2011, the town spent $70,398 — more than
nine times that amount. In 2010, it spent $50,761.
A handful of cases each year cause the majority of
the expenses, said Richmond Town Administrator Roberta A. Fraser, who is
also chairwoman of the Winchester Selectmen.
Though Fraser did not have a bottom-line number for
Richmond’s court battles from 2007 to 2011 with the St. Benedict’s
Center, she said it’s “safe to say the number is in the tens of
thousands.”
A reassessment fight with Public Service Co. of New
Hampshire in 2011 and ’12 cost the town $45,740, not including the
$11,781 settlement. It also contributed to both the preceding year’s sum
and the $24,044 Richmond has spent on legal costs since January.
The difference between Richmond and Winchester is the
number of cases, Fraser said. While Fraser estimates Richmond has about
a half-dozen cases a year, Winchester, which has a population about
four times as large, has 17 cases on its 2012 legal calendar.
Winchester does have a strong record in court.
Neither Morel nor the town’s attorney, Bart L. Mayer, could remember a
case in which the town did not prevail. But Morel says they all cost
money.
“We do ask for legal fees; we haven’t been granted any,” Morel said.
Some cases in Winchester are filed by the town to
enforce zoning codes and ordinances such as trash-filled yards, but this
year the town is the defendant in a majority of cases.
Defendant or plaintiff, the cases in Winchester and Richmond often have some common features, Fraser said.
Winchester resident Terrance P. Qualters has been
involved in nine cases against the town since 1981, said a clerk at the
Cheshire County Superior Court.
The town has taken several properties from Qualters
due to back taxes, and has taken him to court to remove him from the
properties. However, Qualters has fought the town on each step because
he believes the town government is corrupt.
“I don’t like this town (government) of Winchester one single bit,” Qualters said.
The town is such a popular adversary, it has even
faced itself. This year the town almost had $419,000 in spending
disallowed because selectmen filed suit against the budget committee.
Although the case was settled through a consent decree, it still required the town to pay for two lawyers.
In some cases, the town gets blamed no matter what
happens. For example, both the applicant and opponents of a proposed
Dunkin’ Donuts in Winchester have brought the town to court over the
same project.
When the Winchester Zoning Board granted S.S. Baker
Realty a zoning variance in 2008 for a proposed combination convenience
store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts, local grocery store Kulick’s Inc.
appealed the decision. The case reached the N.H. Supreme Court, which
upheld the board’s decision in September 2010.
The town is back in court over the same project now,
but against S.S. Baker, which is appealing the Winchester Planning
Board’s rejection of the project.
Kulick’s owner, Stanley S. Plifka Jr. is not surprised by the volume of legal action the town sees.
Winchester is filled with cliques and personalities
who clash, Plifka said, and “with the decisions the town makes, they’re
lucky they don’t get sued more than that.”
That extends to officials in town government. In
March 2011, planning board member Kim N. Gordon filed an affidavit in a
case against the town alleging then-board Chairwoman Margaret Sharra had
acted inappropriately during an asphalt plant application.
As a result, selectmen considered removing Gordon
from the board but ultimately did not. Gordon filed a right-to-know suit
against the town afterward, alleging she should have been allowed to
attend a non-public meeting in which selectmen considered a letter from
its legal counsel.
Gordon was unsuccessful in both the right-to-know
request and her attempt to get the town to pay her legal fees from the
selectmen’s deliberations.
Sharra, who is now the town land use administrator,
said the appeal process for land use cases can be frustrating but does
not begrudge people who use it. She just wants them to think twice about
filing suit against the town.
