Seabrook selectmen at odds over 'frivolous' suit over default budget

SEABROOK — An attempt by two residents to stop the town from presenting its default budget on the ballot at Tuesday’s Town Meeting was slapped down by the court for lack of evidence.

Maria Brown and Mary Messina filed for a temporary and permanent injunction at Rockingham Superior Court, claiming the Board of Selectmen and town manager illegally put together the default budget for the coming year. Brown and Messina claimed the default budget is more than $800,000 higher than they believed it should be.

Article 4 of Seabrook’s town ballot proposes a 2023 budget of $30,143,574. Should that fail, the proposed default budget of $29,951,709, or $191,865 less, would go into effect.

Judge Lisa English denied the request stating “The Court is not finding in this order that there are no irregularities or improper appropriations in the default budget. Rather, the Court finds that, on the evidence and record before it, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to specify appropriations that should be excluded through a preliminary injunction.”

English heard the case in an expedited hearing held Feb. 23, ruling the next day, just before the deadline for the printing of the town’s March 14 ballot.

What is a default budget?

In Senate Bill 2 communities, like Seabrook, if voters reject the proposed budget, a default budget automatically goes into effect. The default budget is calculated by the Board of Selectmen.

According to the New Hampshire Municipal Association’s website, in SB2 towns, the default budget is formed by taking the same budget authorized the previous year, and making certain allowed adjustments that can increase or decrease it. For example, according to the NHMA, default budgets may be higher than the previous year’s budget due to multi-year union contracts that provide wage increases for employees, rising insurance premiums, debt service payments on bonds or loans, other contractual agreements, or additional “obligations previously incurred or mandated by law,” such as Workers Compensation insurance or payments to the state’s Retirement System employees.”

Default budgets can be lower, according to the NHMA, when one-time expenses not expected to recur are subtracted from the previous year’s budget.

More:North Hampton chief latest to leave police dept. Town leaders say they don't know why.

Seabrook residents claim default budget padded

Brown and Messina’s legal action is based on information they told English was prepared and provided to them by Selectman Srinivasan “Ravi” Ravikumar. Within their lawsuit, Brown and Messina included his spreadsheet that allegedly showed that the default budget was $810,000 more than it should be. According to Ravikumar, he had no part in the lawsuit but did prepare the spreadsheet and distributed to those on his e-mail list.

Town Manager Bill Manzi said Ravikumar’s spreadsheet is riddled with serious errors.

In her decision, English noted the plaintiffs “had difficulty explaining how they arrived at their challenged $810,000 figure.”

“Further,” English wrote, “Plaintiffs were unable to provide sufficient detail as to any specific amount that was included in the default budget contrary to the requirements…”

Staying on:SAU 21 Superintendent Meredith Nadeau gets contract extension until 2027

Lawsuit reveals hostility between Select Board members

At their March 6 meeting, the animosity between the members of the Select Board over Ravikumar’s part in the lawsuit came to light.

Selectwoman Theresa Kyle stressed that although the injunction was denied, if Brown and Messina don’t withdraw their lawsuit, the town will be forced to defend itself in court at the trial, running up more costly legal bills.

“Ka-ching, ka-ching,” Kyle said, mimicking the sound of a cash register. “Fellow taxpayers; it’s costing this town a lot of money for this frivolous lawsuit.”

Kyle claimed Ravikumar was secretly behind the suit and testified in court on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Ravikumar reiterated at the meeting that his only part in the suit related to sending out an email to voters who are on his mailing list. Ravikumar said he was asked by the judge at the hearing to explain his spreadsheet, Exhibit 5, in Brown and Messina’s legal brief.

But his explanation didn’t fly with his fellow board members.

“That’s a slap in the face to the other two selectmen and the town manager,” Kyle said. “Horrific harm has been done to the town by these people and I am outraged at it. I am outraged that a member of this board would engage in this type of stuff because he has a vendetta against the Fire Department.”

Defending himself, Ravikumar implied he has been at odds with his fellow board members over numerous issues since joining the board.

“To accuse me of colluding against the town is not only ignorant but very vicious,” he said. “But, it’s nothing new. You have seen it in Board of Selectmen’s videos…”

‘Wicked Tuna’ Seabrook woman reels in monster catch in TV debut

Kyle countered that Ravikumar shared with Brown and Messina what are considered confidential communications between town counsel and the board, violating “attorney-client privilege.”

“Right in the complaint is our attorney’s notes to the Board of Selectmen, which you provided to those plaintiffs,” Kyle said.

Selectman Aboul Khan tried to wrap up the discussion and get on with the meeting, but he added that when board members disagree, he or she has to be able to move on, not resort to legal tactics.

“I don’t go to court because I lose a vote here,” Khan said. “If we keep going to the courts because one selectman has lost on a vote, that’s taxpayers’ money.”

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook selectmen at odds over 'frivolous' suit over default budget