Meeting Ends in Confrontation [VIDEO]

There were fireworks yesterday at the end of the meeting after members of the board made a Ward 8 City Councilor Dick Patten for his interaction with a police officer concerning a traffic ticket issued to a friend.

After the committee adjourned, state Rep. , D-Concord, rose to ask at-large City Councilor why and the Rules Committee concerning the ethics of councilors, the newly created ethics board, and had not received an official response or public hearing by the board.

“Is your intention to make up the ethics rules as you go along?” he asked. “And to go after the people you dislike and protect the people you like?”

Instead of answering the question, St. Hilaire repeatedly said, “We’re adjourned … we’re adjourned,” while walking away from Watrous.

The issues Watrous raised in the letter included whether or not city councilors were prohibited from contacting city officials or employees about a matter in which they have a financial, personal interest; Were city councilors prohibited from contacting city officials or employees about a matter in which they have a personal interest that is not financial; and whether city councilors were prohibited from speaking or voting on matters directly impacting corporations or businesses of which they are owners, members or employees, and whether there was a prohibition against no-bid contracts or funding agreements going to a corporation or business of which one or more city councilors are a part.

Later, St. Hilaire said, “If it needs to be addressed, we’ll have another meeting. It was not on the agenda today. Quite frankly, obviously, the matter we discussed in the first instance was pretty important. If it is referred to us by the council, we’ll review it.”

In a previous interview, St. Hilaire stated that the hearing held on March 8  raised by Watrous and later apologized for the mix up saying, “I misstated … I apologize. If it wasn’t referred to us, it wasn’t put on the agenda. Maybe I assumed the council referred that to us. If it was referred to us, we’ll have to have another meeting.”

St. Hilaire then challenged Watrous, saying he was repeatedly asking similar questions and believed they had already been answered at previous meetings.

“This has happened year after year,” he said. “Ever since I was first elected on this council. We answer the same questions you have, over and over again.”

Watrous countered, “You’ve been doing a great job covering up … you have not answered these questions.”

“Representative, you are a public servant, just like I am,” St. Hilaire countered, “and you consistently harp on the same thing, looking for a different answer.”

“You have not answered these questions,” Watrous repeated, “and I find, just like in the , you’re making up the rules as you go along and it’s time to clarify.”

At this point, Mayor Jim Bouley stepped in and said while Watrous' letter was received, no councilor voted to refer it to a committee or respond to it. He stated that he thought the city solicitor might be able to answer questions of ethics but councilors had no responsibility to respond to every letter the body received.

When asked when people would be seated to an , Bouley said, “I’m searching for people to serve. I’ve actually gotten some inquiries of people who would like to serve.”

Watrous said he would be interested in serving on the board and Bouley suggested he send a letter to the clerk about it and would be considered.

In the wake of the reprimand recommendation, St. Hilaire said he believed there was more clarity concerning how the charter reads when it comes to councilors influencing the city manager or other “officers” of the city, meaning employees, department heads, or others. He said, in the case of Patten, while the interaction with the police officer was not appropriate, it did not rise to the level of dismissal.

“When you look at the charter and those rules, they are our guide,” St. Hilaire. “We didn’t create those rules but we have to live by them.”