Jim Hewitt’s actions on Portsmouth board painted differently by opposing attorneys

Jim Hewitt, left, the Portsmouth Planning Board member facing potential removal, is seen with his attorney, Jeremy D. Eggleton, during a hearing in City Council chambers Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. (Courtesy photo)

The Portsmouth City Council spent five hours Monday night hearing from both sides about whether activist Jim Hewitt should be removed from the city’s Planning Board, or be allowed to continue his term.

The council decided to call it a night at around 11 p.m. Monday and voted unanimously to continue the hearing until Tuesday night.

The City Council heard opening arguments from City Attorney Susan Morrell — who is seeking to have Hewitt removed — and Jeremy D. Eggleton, the attorney for the Planning Board member. Eggleton called the city’s actions against Hewitt “a disgrace.”

Morrell also called former City Attorney Robert Sullivan and Planning Board Chairman Rick Chellman to testify.

Malfeasance or representing residents?

Morrell claimed Hewitt committed malfeasance while serving on the Planning Board for the last two years.

The case outlined by Morrell Monday night and in documents filed with the city focuses mostly on a series of emails Hewitt sent to members of the Planning Board — and other city land-use boards and planning staff — about development projects in Portsmouth.

The removal hearing was set to resume Tuesday at 6 p.m. in City Council Chambers in City Hall.

Morrell explained during Monday’s hearing that “malfeasance simply means a general misuse of … a public office or … wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duties.”

She alleged Hewitt violated the legal guidelines and restrictions placed on Planning Board members to follow “a quasi-judicial standard and the juror standard to remain fair and impartial” in matters before the Planning Board.

A course of conduct, city attorney says

“We’re here tonight not because of one instance of conduct perhaps that could be construed as a mistake or an error,” Morrell said. “The matter …is about a long course of conduct of numerous actions that demonstrate some bias and prejudgment of projects coming before the Planning Board.”

She stated that both Sullivan and Chellman spoke to Hewitt about the emails he sent in an attempt to offer “corrective action.”

“However his conduct continued to stray outside of the bounds of that legal restriction and his guidelines of a member of the Planning Board,” Morrell said.

She told the council that should an applicant to the Planning Board discover bias on the part of a board member, it could result in the city being sued.

That could cost “time, resources, and money to defend and that is why the matter here tonight is important,” she said.

Morrell acknowledged “we’ve all heard a chorus of supporters for Mr. Hewitt, emphasizing his expertise and willingness to do research and do his homework.

“There’s a place for activists, for people with strong opinions regarding many issues,” Morrell said. “That has to be set aside when you’re sitting on a land-use board.”

Attorney for Hewitt alleges a campaign to destroy his reputation

Attorney Jeremy D. Eggleton, who represents Hewitt, asked rhetorically “what awful thing must he (Hewitt) have done” to be charged with malfeasance.

“Did James Hewitt steal money from the city? Did he take kickbacks from developers for preferred treatment? Did he accept a bribe in exchange for his vote? No, no and no, and no to all the other things you might think of that might fall under any reasonable person’s definition of malfeasance,” Eggleton said during Monday’s hearing. “No the city accuses Mr. Hewitt of malfeasance because he sent some emails that they say he shouldn’t have sent, that he sought information quote unquote outside the record, information that he thought it was important for the public to know.

“He spoke on issues that concerned him outside his duties as a Planning Board member. And guess what? He’s allowed to do that in America,” Eggleton added.

He told the council and about 35 members of the public who attended Monday’s hearing “you are witnessing a campaign to destroy Mr. Hewitt’s reputation.”

Eggleton added it was a “payback campaign because Jim Hewitt campaigned for the wrong candidates, had the wrong opinions and demanded more scrutiny of projects form the city’s Planning Board than the city wanted to give.”

Hewitt was appointed to the Planning Board in December 2021 by then-Mayor Rick Becksted, who was serving his final weeks after being voted out of office. 

“Make no mistake, this is a punitive effort to inflict harm on a citizen who stepped up to volunteer for a land use board when the city asked him to,” Eggleton said. “I don’t mind telling you that this whole process is an absurdity.”

He pointed out that one of the emails that Morrell is using to seek to prove Hewitt’s malfeasance was sent before his term on the Planning Board started.

He noted another email from Hewitt that is now part of the case to remove him was sent after the city’s then-planning director gave her OK, saying the information Hewitt sought to share was already part of the public record.

“No criminal activity, no lining of pockets, no taking advantage of his office for his personal benefit, just trying to protect the interests of the city and its citizens, including those applicants seeking relief from the board,” Eggleton said about the case against Hewitt. “It’s a disgrace that we’re here tonight having to do this.”

Planning Board chairman says he warned Hewitt

Chellman, who chairs the Planning Board, stated he had to write to Hewitt twice because he was concerned by emails he sent.

“I felt at times Jim has been pushing that envelope in ways he shouldn’t,” Chellman said.

He testified too that he “sometimes felt our (zoning) regulations” were “not enough” in Hewitt’s opinion.

“That in my mind is not appropriate,” Chellman said.

Chellman also testified about a meeting he, Hewitt and Mayor Deaglan McEachern had in City Hall about the Planning Board member’s actions.

That meeting took place on Jan. 10, according to documents released as part of the Legal Department’s case against Hewitt.

“I was struck by Jim saying that he felt that the proposed removal was, I think he said the punishment exceeds the crime,” Chellman said about the meeting in McEachern’s office.

“Also, he was told by the mayor that he had two choices, one was he could resign, or the other was this process could proceed as we’re doing tonight,” he said.

Chellman suggested another solution was for Hewitt to “put in writing what he said to the mayor, he apologized, he acknowledged the letters that you (Morrell) sent him and I sent him, … said he shouldn’t have done those things and wouldn’t do it again.”

“But I knew that wouldn’t be enough because he said that before,” Chellman testified.

Open-ended resignation letter suggested

So Chellman also suggested Hewitt write an “undated letter of resignation that I would hold, such that if he did something else in my discretion, I would submit the letter and this sort of process would be avoided.”

The city approved the idea, Chellman said, but Hewitt never ended up signing the resignation letter.

Under cross examination by Eggleton, Chellman added that during the meeting McEachern “told him they were prepared to proceed with removal proceedings, or he could resign.”

“The mayor wanted him out. The mayor said he had crossed the line for malfeasance,” Chellman said. “He had had it.”

But when Eggleton asked if McEachern should recuse himself, the mayor asked Chellman a question.

“Did I state anything other than we were prepared to move forward with this proceeding and that we would decide as nine city councilors based on this hearing or he could remove himself,” McEachern said.

Chellman said that’s “exactly” what McEachern said, and added that “I misspoke.”

Denton recuses himself

At the start of Monday’s five hour hearing, City Councilor Josh Denton did recuse himself from the hearing and any votes on Hewitt’s removal.

He said he “potentially” biased himself when responding to a question from the Portsmouth Herald before the November 2023 elections.

Denton mentioned a Raynes Avenue redevelopment project in the answer, a project Hewitt also sent emails about that are included in the case against him.

Although not by name, Denton’s answer also referred to Planning Board members Becksted had appointed before he left office.

Hewitt is expected to testify during Tuesday’s hearing and the council is also scheduled to hear public comment.

This article is being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.