TC meeting 11/24/25

Credit: This is the writing from Vanessa Fiorillo's All Things Portsmouth Post on Facebook.

​

Disc Golf:

- Mr Hamilton asked the solicitor to weigh in on why he believes this can be voted on for reconsideration.

​

Solicitor said there is a common misconception that there are some rules around reconsideration that don’t apply in this case. Those rules only apply if something is reconsidered at the same meeting. Since we are a couple meetings out, the rules don’t apply anymore.

​

“A motion to rescind, a motion to reconsider, it’s all sort of the same thing… whether you call it appeal, amend, annul, reconsider, rescind.”

​

“You don’t have to have new information, you can just have changed your minds”

​

- Ms McDowell dropped the bombshell that she was not the author of the powerpoint deck she attached as back up to her agenda item. She said an unnamed citizen approached her on Nov 12th with this presentation.

​

She continued that the whole process was flawed from the onset because 1) the P&R committee did not operate transparently and according to the rules so citizens are aware of important issues. 2) new information was not allowed to be considered 3) misinformation and blatant lies were presented

​

She continued that in 2010 the council banned golf at the Glen, and the backup she provided on that wasn’t included even though she submitted it.

​

Mr Hamilton countered that comparing disc golf to actual golf is completely inappropriate. He stated that many pieces of her speech were untrue, and that the process started 12 months ago. He continued that all committee meeting minutes pertaining to disc golf were posted except for one, which hadn’t been approved yet.

​

McDowell made a motion to rescind the disc golf approval, seconded by Reis.

​

Mr Payero gave a passionate speech about how this “do-nothing council” continuously kicks the can, citing examples such as curbside pickup, the senior center lease, the housing authority, non/partisan elections. Ms Patton took issue with him bringing these up bc they weren’t on the agenda, Mr Hamilton explained that they are on topic to which she replied “well that’s your opinion.” Mr Payero: “congratulations, yes, I know”

​

He continued that the council took credit for the town administrator’s budget, when all they did was move a couple dollars here and there.

​

“We’ve done absolutely nothing. We take one step forward toward progress and 10 steps back. And the only thing this council is interested in is the semblance of action while promoting regression and that’s become the mantra of this do- nothing council.”

​

Ms Blank expressed how unfortunate it was to be covering this topic again, and that the 2 year trial should have been the right move. It’s low impact to the Glen and we need to give the people of Portsmouth a chance.

​

Portsmouth Democrats president Len Katzman spoke about the parliamentary procedure and how this vote was potentially an open meetings act violation. The agenda noted that it was a reconsideration, but motion was to rescind. The motion was not properly noticed and as such is in violation of the OMA. There is a big difference between a motion to rescind and to reconsider according to Roberts Rules of Order. It would need to come back to council to rescind after being put on the agenda.

​

The solicitor claimed that “reconsider” has a plain English meaning, not just for Roberts Rules and as such “the motion to rescind is the correct motion and perfectly in order.”

Mr Payero countered that RR of Order are the established parliamentary procedure of the council, and they are 2 very different definitions and motions, they are not interchangeable.

The solicitor continued to argue that “reconsider” is a plain English term and that’s why the RR definition isn’t applicable.

​

Mr Hamilton, on the advice of the solicitor (who he notes is going to have to defend if it is wrong) allowed the vote. Motion to rescind disc golf passed 4-3, with the “Candidates for Transparency” (Reis, Patton, McDowell, Gleason) voting to approve. Ms Patton gave no explanation for her changed vote.

​

Mr Hamilton then opened for discussion from members of the public who had new information and had not spoken at previous meetings on the topic. The solicitor, Ms McDowell, and Ms Patton took issue with this, but Mr Hamilton continued.

​

Christin Stenning, president of Newport County League of Women Voters, spoke in sharp criticism of the process. “Constantly revisiting a settled issue after a formal vote undermines the legitimacy of decision making with this council. When the democratic process is repeatedly challenged in this way, it erodes public trust.”

​

David Fiorillo, chair of the parks and rec committee, responsed to comments made about the committee: “contributing to the town is not a scheme- it is what responsible, engaged residents do. This moment reflects poorly on Portsmouth. The way this has unfolded has made our town appear fractured and unprofessional.”

​

Steve Pappas, long term TC member and former president, joined from zoom to express his disappointment: “to listen to what went on tonight, and to hear someone who changed their vote and not give one reason why… they sat there while the solicitor fed to 4 people a bunch of hooey so they could suck it up and come up with this decision they made prior to this meeting.” (Ms Patton denied)

​

After that, Mr Gleason called a point of order and made a motion to close public comment. Motion passed 4-3, with the C4T approving. Mr Hamilton closed with the comment “however since the way things have played out tonight obviously we can bring back a motion any time you want… to talk about anything.”

​