‘He Has to Decide’: Businessman Calls for City Councilor’s Removal

By Dylan Marsh
EAGLE TIMES STAFF
CLAREMONT- On November 9, 2022, the Claremont City Council will discuss, along with legal counsel, the result of a dispute between Ford of Claremont owner Christian Gomes and Claremont City Council, and Conservation Committee member James Contois.

At a City Council meeting on October 26, Gomes approached the board asking for Contois’ removal. Gomes cited a recent incident with Contois, in which he claims Contois was on his property and would not leave. This resulted in Gomes calling the Claremont Police Department and Contois being issued a no trespassing order at the 155 Charlestown Road location.

Gomes also stated that Contois abused his power when he called the Claremont Police Department, asking that the no trespass order be rescinded. Contois disputes the claim that he was on Gomes’ property, stating that the city owns the portion of land he was standing on.

The dispute stems from when the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau approved Gomes’ application to dredge a section of wetlands on Charlestown Road. Contois has appealed the NH DES September 27 decision, stating that the department has failed to protect the wet meadow and that the decision violates an Env-Wt due to their being a practicable alternative to Gomes project.

Contois stated that the reason for him being at the Charlestown Road location was to take photos of the wetlands for his upcoming appeal hearing. He believes that Gomes is upset with him regarding the appeal. Gomes stated that Contois’ behavior is harassment.

At the October 26 meeting, Gomes approached the City Council to inform them of the recent no trespassing order being placed and what he stated was an abuse of power when Contois called the police department. Gomes also draws issue with Contois’ role as an activist in the community, despite nothing in the city charter outlining whether a city councilor may participate as an environmental activist.

“He can’t be an activist and an impartial member of this council. He has to decide which one he wants to be,” said Gomes.

As a result, Gomes demanded that Contois be removed or reprimanded, and if the board doesn’t meet those demands Gomes stated, “If something doesn’t happen, I will make it known to every business small and large that the city of Claremont is not a place to do business.”

As a result, City Councilor Andrew O’Hearne has called for a proposed hearing at the next meeting. When asked if the hearing would have the intention of removing Contois, he said he was perturbed about the accusations and wanted to hear both sides.

“I’m a little concerned about what was mentioned during the citizens forum about the councilor, and we need to do something as far as, under the charter under article 3 section 28 to have a hearing at the next meeting,” O’Hearne said when calling for the upcoming discussion.

As for what that hearing will look like, there is a degree of uncertainty. Claremont Mayor Dale Girard said that there isn’t precedent for this and a discussion with legal counsel would have to take place before the meeting.

“We’ve reached out to legal counsel at this point to see what we can even discuss because we’re not sure there’s anything we can do. Until we hear officially from the attorney we don’t know, but we will find out for sure when the attorney makes his recommendation,” Girard said.

In recent days, concerns have been raised as to what stipulations could have a city councilor removed from the board. Many have cited a portion of the city charter as a reason for removal specifically, part 1of the municipal code, article 3 on administration and rule 28 which covers removal of an administrator. It states that the city council may, on specific charges after due notice or hearing, remove the mayor, assistant mayor, or one of its own members for cause including but not limited to, absence, crime or misconduct in office, as specified in the charter among others.

At this time, Contois has not been charged with any crime and Claremont Police Chief Brent Wilmot has stated that, “I did not get the impression that Contois was trying to use his power to rescind the no-trespassing order, but rather that he was confused about the process. And we left that conversation with me feeling as though he had a better understanding.”