Hull v. Grafton County, 160 N.H. 818

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed judgment for Grafton County and related respondents in a dispute concerning notice deficiencies for a county convention meeting that established elected officials' salaries. The court held that the defective notice did not automatically invalidate the timely salary vote under RSA 23:7, and upheld the denial of injunctive relief, appointment of a monitor, and attorney's fees.

Holdings

1. Defective notice did not automatically render the Convention's May 21 salary vote a nullity because RSA 23:7 required salaries to be established before the candidate-filing deadline but did not specify that a timely vote at an improperly noticed meeting was void.
2. The court did not need to decide whether the Convention had authority to ratify the May 21 vote on July 21 because the May 21 vote was already valid and effective despite the notice deficiencies.
3. The petitioners were not entitled to an injunction against payment of the salaries, future-violation injunctions, or appointment of a monitor.
4. The petitioners were not entitled to attorney's fees because they failed to show that they were refused access to the meeting or denied access to records, or that the lawsuit was necessary to make the proceeding open or information available.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defective notice of the May 21 Convention meeting rendered the Convention's timely salary-setting vote a nullity under RSA 23:7.
2. Whether the Convention's July 21 ratification was authorized after the RSA 23:7 deadline had expired.
3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to injunctive relief or appointment of a monitor for alleged future violations of RSA chapter 91-A and RSA 24:9-d.
4. Whether the petitioners were entitled to attorney's fees under RSA 91-A:8, I.

Disposition

affirmed