Keystone Cops? Devious skullduggery? Or a typical city at work on a Tuesday night?

IS THIS WHERE WE GO WHERE YOU TELL US HOW TO VOTE? Rochester Mayor Paul Callaghan gestures to the back room behind City Council chambers on July 5 where the secret meeting went down as City Manager Blaine Cox tidies up. (Screenshot)

What happened in City Council chambers a week ago does not instill trust in our city's government.
On the contrary, it instills distrust.
What we saw was a total breakdown of following rules, ineptitude by city officials and the overturning of a City Council vote after a suspected strongarm confab in the back room.
The drama began at the 53-minute mark when City Council voted 7-5 to purchase 181 Highland St. for $299,000, ostensibly for land where the city's third fire station would be located.
We say ostensibly because three years ago they ostensibly bought land on Chestnut Hill Road where the new DPW garage is for the city's third fire station, but we digress.
Anyway, after the vote was taken, there were seven votes to purchase the land and five not to, whereupon the city clerk noted aloud, "Motion carries."
Freshman counselor Steven Beaudoin then asked for a point of order.
"This is a supplemental appropriation; does it not take a two-thirds vote?" he asks.
As Mayor Paul Callaghan refers the question to City Attorney Terrence O'Rourke, City Manager Blaine Cox looks perplexed for a moment then says quietly, "I thinks he's right (referring to Beaudoin)."
After a minute or so of furtive searching by O'Rourke and Deputy City Manager Katie Ambrose, she finds the verbiage and O'Rourke announces that, indeed, it takes a two thirds vote. Motion fails.
It is absolutely breathtaking that if not for a freshman city councilor, the council would have errantly passed a $299,000 purchase by city taxpayers of more land for the city's third fire station.
But it gets worse.
A few minutes later as Callaghan raised his gavel to adjourn the meeting
O'Rourke interjected a proposal.
"Prior to adjournment I request that we adjourn to the conference room for a nonmeeting" and the mayor replies, "OK," and bangs the gavel. A second later he adds, "Do we need a second?"
"We can adjourn," states Cox, followed by shouts of "No, no" from an unknown source before Callaghan bangs the gavel again, "OK, meeting's adjourned."
The sound then cuts off for a few seconds before Callaghan can be heard saying, "OK, meeting's suspended."
This is all around the 1:40 mark, and we urge all Rochester residents to at least watch this portion of your government in action.
'Keystone Cops" comes to mind. If you don't recognize the metaphor, we urge you to go to youtube and see of what we speak.
But back to the nonmeeting (secret meeting), "If a public body is meeting in public session and wants to consult with legal counsel, it should vote on the record to adjourn the meeting" to go to a so-called nonmeeting," according to the state RSA.
But in this case the city attorney called for the nonmeeting, and there was no vote, just an authoritative "We can adjourn," from Cox.
Doug Lachance, a longtime real estate agent, former mayor and city councilor, speculated in a Friday article in The Rochester Voice that the nonmeeting was called to announce that the city could expect a large lawsuit by the seller of 181 Highland St. if the city failed to purchase the land since a purchase and sale agreement on the parcel expired the day after the meeting.

Lachance said it he were the agent for the seller, he'd suggest a lawsuit amount of $100,000.
What's stunning is that the city did not affix a suitable deposit - say $10,000 - which would serve as an implicit forfeiture if the purchase and sale didn't go through. Without an upfront deposit, the door is open wide for a lawsuit of much larger financial scope.
So the councilors who flipped can be forgiven, we suppose, but the way the city went about this "land acquisition" cannot be forgiven.
And why would councilor John Larochelle, who abstained because he was a friend of the seller, suddenly have an epiphany that he should vote.
Abstaining from a vote is a personal decision that a councilor or selectperson makes of his own volition.
Was he pressured to go ahead anyhow? Was he told it was perfectly OK to go ahead and vote because he had no vested interest in the sale?
We'll never know, will we?
Part of the 91-A statute says conversations with legal counsel are protected under the lawyer-client privilege.
And here we thought the barrister was working for the people of Rochester. No, his client is the city of Rochester.
By the way, we asked the city manager why Beaudoin, a freshman councilor, knew more about municipal law than Rochester's highest-paid employee. No comment.
We also asked him why no cash deposit was offered up in the purchase and sale. No comment.
And the beat goes on.

- HT