Resident petition alleges repeated 'illegal' emergency meetings; court warns board against further non‑bona fide emergencies

A presenter read a petition and a court decision alleging the New Durham Select Board held multiple improper "emergency" meetings in violation of New Hampshire's Right‑to‑Know law (RSA 91‑A). The presenter (S4) summarized the court's Feb. 13, 2026, ruling that denied ex parte emergency relief but cautioned the board: "Thus, while the court denies the request of a preliminary injunction relief, it is advising the board of select that it will be wise to refrain from following any further emergency meeting unless constitutes a bona fide emergency meeting." The petition alleges past emergency meetings were used for routine business and that one meeting led to an increased default budget by about $500,000.

During the public comment period multiple residents raised ethics and governance concerns, arguing prolonged remote participation by a selectman left the town with effectively two in‑person board members and limited voters' oversight. One resident (S8) told the board: "What Swenson did was, he did illegal meetings that we now know this town is going to have to pay for." The board stated it could not respond in detail because the matter remains in litigation and shared that the court scheduled further proceedings for February 2026 when the petition was addressed.