The new year in New Hampshire, where Republicans gained majorities in both houses of the legislature, is already off to a fun start. In fact, freshman Republican state Rep. Phil Greazzo has now lodged an ethics complaint against a member of the Democratic leadership, state Rep. Mike Brunelle, alleging that Brunelle has violated the state Constitution and should be expelled for being a paid officer of an outside political organization: The Democratic Party.
As the Concord Monitor reported Thursday:
At the end of yesterday’s House session, Manchester Republican Rep. Phil Greazzo publicly accused Brunelle of violating the Constitution by taking fees and acting as an advocate for the Democratic Party while filing legislation that benefited the party platform.
“He filed legislation that directly arises out of the party,” Greazzo said.
The complaint against Brunelle is based in a section of the state constitution: “No member of the general court [legislature] shall take fees, be of counsel, or act as advocate, in any cause before either branch of the legislature; and upon due proof thereof, such member shall forfeit his seat in the legislature.”
The New Hampshire Democrats responded with a statement on Wednesday, decrying what they called “the effort by the Republican leadership to remove Mike Brunelle, who was duly elected by the people of Manchester’s Ward 3, from office, simply because he is an effective advocate who happens to be a Democrat.” They also added:
The removal of state legislators for political reasons is a reckless assault on our democracy and our Constitution. The Speaker and his leadership team are using intimidation tactics to squash dissent in the State House. These tactics are better suited to the old Soviet Union, and bring discredit on the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
I asked Greazzo what the issue was about Brunelle’s positions in the legislature and the Democratic Party.
“You can’t be a paid advocate for your political party, basically, is how I look at it,” said Greazzo. “You can’t do both. You can’t be a paid political advocate for your party’s position and be a member of the House at the same time. As the executive director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, not only does he have influence over house members as a legislator, he has influence over their election directly. So he has undue influence on their vote at the state House.”
Greazzo said that Brunelle should have resigned his post with the state party. I also asked whether it might be possible, if there were a ruling from the legislature to interpret the constitution in that manner, that Brunelle could then simply choose to quit the state party going forward, and remain in the legislature? “No, that would not be possible,” Greazzo answered, saying it was too late following the actual violation.
“Not only does he have this executive director-ship, they pay him to do the political work of their party. Now they pay him to do the political work of their party within the state House,” Greazzo added.
I cited a point raised by the Democrats, and also in a Concord Monitor editorial — that Greazzo himself holds dual offices as a Manchester city alderman, and is in a position to vote on issues affecting the city and other municipal officials. How is this different from Brunelle’s situation?
Greazzo countered that the state constitution explicitly allows for dual office-holding, and that the conflicts of interest are not there. “Manchester has not paid me to go for Concord and advocate for them.”
Did he have the support of the Republican leadership when he lodged the complaint against Brunelle, I asked? “Well, before I brought this forward, I did speak with leadership to see if it was something worth pursuing, if it was valid. And they said it at least warranted investigation.”
The state Dems have also argued that the clause in the constitution “only applies to legal claims or cases pursued before the legislature is supported by other sections of the Constitution,” and not to Brunelle’s party position.
For his part, Brunelle previously told the Monitor:
“Speaker (William) O’Brien can have whatever sort of witch hunt or trial that he has, but this is baseless,” Brunelle said. “I was elected, and I’m going to serve.”
I sought further comment from Brunelle, but was informed by the state Dems that he had been advised by his counsel to not comment further, pending the legislative hearing.
Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Dem party chair and current national committee member, did speak to us.
“The first immediate result is that it will serve to intimidate and chill the other legislators,” said Sullivan. “The Speaker is trying to punish Mr. Brunelle because he filed bills that the Speaker doesn’t like, such as increasing the minimum wage, such as tax credits for job creation, taking favorable tax treatment away from people who ship jobs overseas. They’re saying these bills are Democratic bills. No, they’re bills for working people.
“There is a message being sent here, which is that if you do things we don’t like, we’ll come after you. But in the long term, I think this won’t have a happy ending for the Republican Party.”
