MANCHESTER, NH April 29, 2026–For the second time in as many meetings, Alderman Ed Sapienza (R-Ward 8) made an attempt to get the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) to adopt the budget proposed by Mayor Jay Ruais.
Sapienza, a fierce advocate for the taxpayer and proponent of the city’s tax cap, first moved to adopt the mayor’s budget on April 7. Ruais opposed the motion saying, among other things, that he didn’t have the health insurance numbers at the time he proposed the budget and that there was additional surplus projected in the current budget. He said a lot of work remained to be done and City Clerk Matthew Normand said that before a budget could be adopted, the charter required a public hearing. That was held on April 14.
Ruais: Clueless in Manchester?
On April 21, Sapienza’s attempt to pull the budget off the consent agenda, which contains items that will be automatically referred to committee or approved by the board without discussion unless removed by an alderman for discussion, was opposed by Ruais, who said that he’d had a conversation with the clerk’s office earlier in the day and that the “rules are clear,” that the budget had to “go through finance” before coming back to the board for approval and had to layover for 5 days before it could be adopted.
Ruais ultimately dropped his opposition to having the item removed after Sapienza said he understood the rules but he had some things he wanted to discuss. After Ruais asked if he wanted to discuss the budget, Sapienza replied “I have some things to say about item number 5.”
After being recognized to address the item, Sapienza moved to suspend the rules so that the budget could be voted on that night.
I think the people have a right to know where we stand. That’s what I’m hearing. People are looking at possibly losing their jobs so the quicker we move on this the better. I don’t see any good reason to kick this can down the road any further. So, with that, I’d like to make a motion to suspend the rules so we can vote on the budget tonight.
Ruais refused to accept the motion, saying the “rules are clear,” to which Sapienza retorted, “The rules can be suspended. It happens all the time.”
Beckoned by a gesture from Ruais, City Clerk Matthew Normand interjected: “Do you want me to read the rule? Is that what you’re asking me?” Ruais replied “Just so the board’s aware before we take a motion to suspend.”
Normand then read the following:
RULE 21. (Appropriation Resolution and Penalty Ordinances) Resolutions appropriating money and ordinances imposing a penalty are invalid unless presented at a regular meeting, referred to its proper committee and after the report of the committee shall have laid upon the table for a period of not less than five days before final action thereon. This rule being taken from the charter cannot be suspended.
There’s also an ordinance to this effect, if you’d like me to read it.
“Cannot be suspended?” Ruais repeated as a question. “Correct,” replied Normand, who then went to read the following ordinance:
§ 35.030 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: APPOINTMENT, COMPOSITION, AND DUTIES.
The Mayor shall, biennially, in the month of January, appoint a Committee on Finance consisting of the Mayor and Aldermen. It shall be the duty of this committee to prepare and lay before the Board of Mayor and Aldermen the annual budget relating to the raising of money and making appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year, and all resolutions relating to the raising of money by taxation, loan, or otherwise, stating the amount necessary to be raised and the objects and purposes for which it shall be expended.
“So, it cannot be suspended,” declared the mayor; wrongly, as it turns out.
Sapienza returned to the board’s practice of suspending rules, but Ruais said the rule didn’t allow for suspension, then proceeded to talk about health care numbers that weren’t available before he presented his budget and the need for a plan to address that additional $1.5 million increase.
Sapienza tried a third time but was told by Ruais “we can’t suspend the rules.” He then turned to Normand to read the rule again and Normand read the last line “This rule being taken from the charter cannot be suspended.”
Here’s the actual charter language:
SECTION 6.04 BUDGET ADOPTION.
(a) Notice and hearing. The board of mayor and aldermen shall publish a copy of the proposed budget, a notice stating the times and place where copies of the message and budget are available for inspection by the public, and the time and place for a public hearing on the mayor’s budget as submitted, at least one week in advance of the public hearing.
Normand: Put on the spot
Inasmuch as the charter does not contain any layover language, never mind the specific layover provision identified in the board rule, Girard at Large asked Normand for the charter provision the rule referenced. The answer was that the current charter, which has been in effect since 1997, doesn’t contain any such language and that the rule was referring to a previous charter. While confirming that the board rules and city ordinances could be suspended by the BMA with 10 votes, Normand stopped short of confirming that this rule could be suspended saying the question would need to be researched. “I believe there is also language through legislative act but I was caught a little cold tonight with this question.” Being blindsided by the questions likely explains why the information discussed with Girard a t Large after the meeting wasn’t shared during it.
This is the second time Sapienza has moved to protect taxpayers and been rebuffed by misinformation from Ruais. The first happened during the March 17 meeting of the board after Sapienza moved to amend the bond approved to pay for the school district’s massive $306 million project to expand the city’s four middle schools, despite their having excess seats and declining enrollment and build a new Beech St. Elementary School.
The day after the meeting, we sent an email to Ruais asking:
With respect to Rule 21, are you aware that that rule references a charter provision that has long since been eliminated, and that the current charter has no layover requirement? As shared by the clerk last night, the ordinance governing the budget process also has no layover requirement. Have you read the budget provisions in either the charter or the ordinances? Are you willing to say you erred and correct the public record? Further, are you aware that the ordinance cited last night can be suspended by a vote of 10 aldermen, as can any ordinance? Note well that I don’t mean to suggest it should be suspended. I’m just giving you a chance to address why you didn’t seem to know what you were talking about last night…
Ruais has yet to reply.
