CLAREMONT — City Councilor James Contois did not improperly use his elected position to try to have a no-trespass order against him lifted by police, Police Chief Brent Wilmot said in a written statement to a committee looking into Contois’ conduct following an incident at a local auto dealership in October.
“At no point did he make any suggestion that I was obligated to do anything at his behest due to his position on the council,” Wilmot wrote in his statement, which was read at Tuesday’s committee meeting by its chairwoman, Deb Matteau, who is also the city’s assistant mayor.
In the Oct. 24 phone conversation, Wilmot said, when he asked Contois why he wanted the order rescinded, Contois replied, “the matter was to become a matter of public embarrassment he was hoping to avoid.”
He described Contois as “polite and cooperative” and said Contois never pressured him to rescind the order or take some administrative or legal action.
The three-member committee, which includes Councilors Andrew O’Hearne and Spencer Batchelder, met for the third and final time Tuesday for less than 15 minutes. Matteau said they will compile all the information they have collected and submit it to the full nine-member council.
She said Mayor Dale Girard will decide whether to place the report on the council’s Jan. 11 agenda for discussion. The council could decide to hold a hearing on Contois’ actions and possibly vote to remove him from the council under city charter rules regarding misconduct. Contois has been accused by the owner of the Ford dealership on Charlestown Road of attempting “improper influence” with the police chief.
On Oct. 19, Contois was issued a no-trespass order by police that was requested by Christian Gomes, owner of the dealership. Contois had gone to the property to take photos for his appeal of a wetlands permit issued to Gomes in September by the state Department of Environmental Services for a second dealership on the property.
Gomes said in his statement to the committee in November, “When I first saw him, he was more than three-quarters of the way up the Ford property.”
According to Gomes, Contois declared the driveway public property and refused to leave until police were called. By the time police did arrive, Contois was on the shoulder of Charlestown Road in front of the dealership.
Contois did not specify to the committee whether he was in the driveway when first approached by Gomes, who submitted statements from two witnesses attesting to where Contois was initially standing.
Five days after the incident, Contois called Wilmot. Contois said in his statement to the committee that the no-trespass order was issued based on “false information” in that he was not on the dealership property and that is why he wanted Wilmot to rescind it.
When Gomes learned of his effort to have the order lifted, he went to the council on Oct. 26 and accused Contois of “abuse of power,” demanding he resign. In November, the council agreed to look into Gomes’ claims and named the three-member committee to gather the facts. It obtained sworn statements from those involved.
Wilmot said in his statement that when Contois contacted him on Oct. 24 he said he was never on the Ford property. Wilmot responded by telling Contois that where he was standing was “irrelevant” because Gomes is allowed to have a no-trespass issued. Wilmot concluded his statement by saying he got the impression Contois did not understand how such matters are handled and resolved.
Police also contacted Gomes but he declined to have the order lifted.
The committee was also charged with looking at accusations that Contois failed to inform the council about a decision by the Historic District Commission on Sept. 22 to demolish two old buildings on Main Street.
Contois sits on the HDC and knew of the decision but told the council on Sept. 26, when it was discussing grants for the work, that no decision had been made. Council members who sit on boards and committee are expected to report any actions to the full council.
Contois first told the council it was not his role to tell the council what transpired as he does not speak for the commission. He later changed that in his statement to the committee to say a certificate of appropriateness had not been issued for the two properties, which he understood to be a requirement for demolition.
The committee reached no conclusions Tuesday, nor did it make any recommendations to the full council on its findings.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
