To the editor:

Proper respect for the decision of the electors suggests that those who are vanquished should hold their tongue. However, good stewardship compels comment when successors are creating liabilities. 

Many people are aware that the trash disposal issue in the town of Portsmouth was very contentious. However, in May of 2024 the council unanimously entered into an agreement for an exclusive contract with a trash hauler. I would note that two of the current members of the council voted in support of that agreement. 

A part of that agreement was an ordinance would be drafted and approved which prohibited trash haulers other than the party the town contracted with from operating trash hauling services in the town, granting an exclusive contract to the contracting party for hauling trash. 

Subsequently, the ordinance was approved in the lame duck session of the council in December. There appears to be a move afoot to repeal that ordinance. This would be in direct contravention of the contract that the town entered into. I believe it would be a violation of that contract. 

In that event the contracting party would be in a position to suggest that the town breached its contract and could seek damages against the town. Those damages would not only include whatever expenses they incurred in preparing the proposal to the town, but usually would include whatever profits they anticipated making from the agreement. I believe that this could be significant (may actually be in seven figures). Regardless of how you feel about the policy, this expense should be taken into account.

Sincerely, 

Charles Levesque

Portsmouth

Note: Mr. Levesque served on the previous council that voted in favor of contracting with an exclusive curbside collector.