| CONCORD — The second administrative hearing involving the Local Government Center was entirely focused on the term “interested parties,” as attorneys went back and forth Tuesday over which entities should be involved in proceeding hearings.
Attorneys Glen Milner and Peter Perroni, who represent the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire and the New England Police Benevolent Association as well as tens of thousands of individuals affiliated with unions and organizations looking to intervene in the proceedings, explained to Hearings Officer Don Mitchell that their clients should be considered “interested parties” because of the large amounts of money they have paid to the LGC.
The umbrella organization is currently under scrutiny for seeding a workers’ compensation program through a 1 percent surcharge that municipalities and their employees were paying through their involvement with the LGC’s HealthTrust program. An investigation by the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Securities Regulation suggests the LGC owes the cities and towns involved upward of $100 million.
” The money we are talking about in this proceeding belongs to my clients,” said Milner, noting both active and retired municipal employees paid money toward the aforementioned programs. “This is much more than a passing interest … We want to make sure the voice of what I consider the victims is heard.”William Saturley, the attorney representing the LGC, its affiliates and Executive Director Maura Carroll, strongly disagreed and called into question the way Milner and Perroni were using the term “interested parties.”
According to Saturley, RSA 5-B, which is the state statute the hearing is based around, does not allow for intervention. He explained the term “interested parties” has a specific meaning under the statute, and just because such parties have an interest in the case does not mean they harbor the right to intervene.
“These proceedings are open to the public,” said Saturley. “If the public shows up, it is because they are interested. That does not mean they can also become involved in the proceedings.”
Milner responded by addressing the fact that the Legislature included the term “interested parties” within the statute and that its plain meaning should be used.
”The words in the statute are not figments of our imagination,” said Perroni. “They do not mean something other than what they mean … They mean interested parties have a role in this procedure.”
Saturley said the two were taking the phrase out of context to give the organizations and unions they represent a status within the hearing.
At the end of the hearing, Mitchell said he will take both sides’ arguments into consideration to determine if, in fact, the unions and organizations looking to intervene can be considered “interested parties.”
Though a definitive location for the next hearing has yet to be determined, it was noted that it will occur at 9 a.m. on Monday, Oct. 24. |
NPHLegal Blog 