#

House Speaker Sherman Packard said he did nothing wrong in his handling of the case of Troy Merner, the former state House member charged with illegal voting and lying about his residency. And, he told reporters Wednesday, he is done talking about the topic.

Packard (R-Londonderry) met with a small group of reporters to clear the air, set the record straight, and end the discussion about what he did and did not do when he first learned Merner did not live in his Lancaster district.

“We had to let the process play out since it was under investigation by the (New Hampshire Department of Justice,)” Packard said. “I never talked to Troy Merner the whole time about his residency.”

Saying it would be the last time he planned to talk about Merner, Packard often sounded defensive during the meeting with NHPR, the Union Leader, and NHJournal, saying he could not have taken action when his office learned last December that Merner’s residency was under investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

“Do what? What would you have me do? Get in the middle of an investigation? That could be criminal. Which is what it turned out to be,” Packard said. “If I had gotten involved in it and screwed up the investigation, you guys would probably be jumping all over me for ‘Why did you get involved’… I lose no matter what the hell I do.”

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office charged Merner, 63, last month on counts of wrongful voting, theft by deception, and unsworn falsification following its investigation. Merner is scheduled to be arraigned on Thursday, Dec. 28 in Coos County Superior Court. 

Packard’s meeting on Wednesday was an attempt to put an end to the critical news stories that dogged his office since the news broke.

“We tried to put this to bed, and every time we try and put it to bed, somebody puts a report out or something of that nature and blows the whole thing up again,” Packard said.

Packard blamed the media and partisan politics for giving life to the controversy and not anything he did or did not do.

“Would this [interest in the Merner story] have happened if we or the other party had a 50-vote majority? Probably not. Let’s be realistic; there’s a lot of politics involved in this right now,” Packard said.

According to documents so far released in the case, the Attorney General’s Office emailed Terry Pfaff — Chief Operating Officer of the New Hampshire legislature — on Dec. 6, 2022, one day before the House Organization Day. The email alerted House authorities to questions about Merner’s living situation and the ongoing investigation. A Packard staffer contacted Merner soon after receiving that email, and Merner denied he was no longer a Lancaster resident.

At that point, according to Packard, he decided to wait for the attorney general.

“We didn’t jump into any type of investigation; we took the man at his word. We had no reason not to, regardless of what the investigation said, because it wasn’t finished,” Packard said. 

Merner, a member of the Lancaster select board, allegedly moved out of Lancaster before he was elected to the House last November. According to court records, Merner considered his Lancaster office, post office box, and intent to eventually move back enough to establish his residency in the district despite the fact he was actually living in Carroll with his wife.

Deputy Speaker Rep. Steve Smith (R-Charlestown) played wingman to Packard at Wednesday’s press conference, explaining that no one made a formal complaint for Packard to act on and brought proof that Merner was not a Lancaster resident to the speaker.

“Anybody could have brought a complaint, and nobody did,” Smith said.

Without a complaint, Smith said that Packard could not act, adding that the Speaker’s Office does not generally investigate alleged misdeeds, nor does it conduct surveillance on members.

“The Speaker’s Office has a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, and … a communications director. We’re not going to deploy them to stake people out,” Smith said. “We don’t have staff or resources for that based on a rumor.”

Merner finally resigned from the House in September aw the attorney general’s investigation neared conclusion. At that point, the Department of Justice provided Packard with proof Merner was not a Lancaster resident. Packard followed up on that information by pushing Merner to step down.

“Once proof was given to us by the DOJ, we acted immediately,” Packard said.

Even if Packard got involved, past House precedent showed nothing would have happened, Packard and Smith argued. They pointed to a similar controversy from 1990, when it was learned Democratic Rep. Cynthia McGovern did not live in her Portsmouth district but instead lived in Hampton. 

Then-Speaker Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) appointed a committee to investigate McGovern’s residency, which took years to bring a resolution ousting McGovern to the floor. Despite it being a clear case of a representative living outside their district, the House voted down a 1992 resolution to boot McGovern from her seat.

“If we did investigate, what would have happened? It would have been really hard to find any conclusion other than the 1992 committee report that saw something just like this,” Smith said.

Is Packard worried about accusations from Democrats that he mishandled the Merner situation or the impact of this incident on his speakership going forward?

“I’ve been in politics a long time. I can’t control what everybody thinks,” Packard said.

After last week’s opening House session of the 2022 season, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) spoke to New Hampshire Journal about events at the Doubletree in Manchester. Packard defended the new district map approved by the Republican-led House and predicted vaccine mandates and the COVID pandemic in general are likely to play a big role in the coming 2022 election.

NH Journal: 

Overall, what were your goals for this first session of the House.”

Packard:

My goal was to get through safely and not have any incidences of sickness. We’ve had two years now. Every time we’ve met, we’ve never had a case. And so I’m hoping and praying that that continues. 

We sent out tests to every member prior to the first few days of the session and asked them to check themselves before they came. So I’m hoping that’s what they use the test kits for. But we also had like twenty machines in there going the whole time, to clean the air. So that was my first thing, to try and make it as safe as possible. 

(Over the weekend, the New Hampshire House Communications team sent out an email to members informing them that at least two people at the Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 House Sessions tested positive for COVID-19. Members and people who attend are being asked to watch for symptoms.)

NH Journal:

On the redistricting issue, do you agree with people who say that this was a good map for Republicans and one that Republicans should rally around and support?

Packard:

I think it’s a fair map. I think it’s a very fair map. We were very careful when we picked the Redistricting Committee as to who we put on it. And I thought on both sides we put people who were very knowledgeable. You gotta remember too … that the redistricting committee went to every single county in the state, including Coos county, and had a public hearing.

If you really look at the map, the 1st District is much more condensed because of the population, where we’ve got 55 percent of the population in two counties. So, it’s much more condensed than the Northern counties and the other counties that have smaller populations. So, it’s going to be a much larger area than the other districts, strictly because of the population.

NH Journal:

Many people were concerned about the bill to ban businesses from being able, if they chose to, have a vaccine mandate for their own employees. There’s a lot of passion surrounding that issue and some Republicans were adamant about it. And yet it got tabled by a pretty large margin. Was that smart politics from the Republican leadership that knew this was a loser issue and killed it quickly? Or was this an ideological vote in the sense that both Democrats and small-government Republicans agreed that the state shouldn’t be interfering in what a business chooses to do?

Packard:

I’m not sure it had anything to do with any particular philosophy on either side. We started out with over 40 bills that had to do with COVID, in some form, whether it be the mandates, the vaccines, or anything else. We whittled that down to about 20 bills. So we’ve got approximately 20 bills sitting in our committees right now that are going to be dealing with this issue. So our goal is to have fair, open hearings on all those bills and come up with the best policy we can. And that’s why I think you’ll find it if you talk to most representatives … I mean, something’s going to pass the legislature and hit the governor’s desk, and that’s what we’re going to be working on over the next couple of months.

NH Journal:

And what do you anticipate hitting the governor’s desk? Is it going to be some restriction on what private businesses can do when it comes to vaccines? 

Packard:

Well, my personal feeling is I’m against the state mandating a mandate. We’ve always been against that. And I feel it is important that we need to protect the workers, but shouldn’t be telling businesses what they can and cannot do. But we need to protect the workers against being fired or laid off because they truly believe that this vaccine is not safe. And many people I talked to believe it’s not safe. I’m not a doctor, and I’m not going to make any determination whether it is or not. I’ve had my shots and I’ve had a booster. 

So, that’s what we’ve got to work out. I would anticipate we’ll have four or five bills that go forward to hit the government’s desk in some form … I truly believe out of the 20 bills we’ve got we will have probably four, I wouldn’t say more than six, land on the governor’s desk that will probably cover all the [COVID] issues that we’re talking about. 

NH Journal:

 As of today, 2022 looks like it’s going to be a good year for Republicans. Do you believe that issues like trying to get in the COVID vaccine fight and the fight over anti-vax versus mandates, etc., is a good issue for Republicans in 2022? Or is it the kind of issue that would actually slow down your potential progress? 

Packard:

I think society today is so conflicted as to the vaccine itself, whether it’s safe or it isn’t safe. I mean, there are some pretty ludicrous statements out there on both sides. And I’m certainly not a doctor, but I think this is going be an issue until this pandemic, is put to bed and at some point is gone. 

 Moving forward, I think it will depend on how events transpire, whether we actually can get rid of it by summertime. I think only time will tell how this is really going to affect the elections. 

I mean, the Democrats have filed some pretty crazy bills too. There was one in there that had to do with, if you were on government assistance, more or less welfare, and you got elected to the State House, they get you more money. There are some pretty crazy bills that have been filed by our Democratic colleagues. So, once I think the public sees some of the crazy stuff, they’re going to realize that they don’t want (the Democrats) leading the state. 

NH Journal:

There’s been a lot of talk about a leadership vacuum in the Democratic House caucus, ongoing struggles between the progressive and traditional Democrats. Are you able to find partners across the aisle to negotiate with and work with, to try to pull more bipartisan legislation forward? Or are you just not interested in doing that? Or is it hard to find people across the aisle who have the ability to bring votes with them to work with as was common in legislatures 10 or 15 years ago? 

Packard:

Oh, I absolutely believe there’s still the hope that we can work together on a lot of legislation. If you look at the history, as long as I’ve been here, 80 to 85 percent of the bills we work on are usually bipartisan in some form. But nobody ever hears about them because they are bipartisan, there’s no conflict. The other 15 to 20 percent are the ones that make all the headlines and make all the news and make all the hubbub.

So, I truly believe that there are still a lot of bipartisan bills out there and a lot of bipartisanship in the committees too. There are a few committees you might consider partisan, like the Election Law Committee. But many of the committees out there, Public Works, Transportation, Fish and Game, all those are fair, bipartisan committees.

So, it depends on the subject matter, but I truly believe that in many cases, the parties will be able to work together going forward.