The fur flew and some facts were lost in the fury
K. Thomas: Set the record straight
MANCHESTER, NH September 19, 2025–The lead up to Joe Kelly Levasseur’s decision to step down as chairman of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) was fast moving and often confusing. Meetings were called and canceled on short notice, outside of public’s view. The behind-the-scenes chatter was often inflammatory and chaotic, using imprecise or general terms, sometimes interchangeably. As we asked questions and sifted through the churning swirl of information in our efforts to understand what was going on, the pieces of this puzzle came together to provide a clear picture of what was happening, or so we thought. It wasn’t until we were contacted by Alderman Kelly Thomas (R-Ward 12) that we’d realized we’d took meanings for some terms for granted and, therefore, failed to ask some pertinent questions. With this article, we share the additional information that, in some cases, corrects prior articles. We also apologize for the errors that lead to incorrect conclusions and representations of people and their actions.
Calling the special meeting
It is true that ten aldermen wanted to have a special meeting to discuss removing Levasseur as board chair over social media posts about Anna Thomas, the city’s director of public health. We reported that ten alderman had “called” a special meeting. Ald. Thomas objected to being characterized as someone who “called” for the meeting. She said she received a call from City Clerk Matthew Normand who asked her if she wanted to have a special meeting to discuss Levasseur’s posts, to which she answered “yes.” She told Girard at Large she “wanted to hear from all sides what was happening” and that her understanding was that there was going to be a discussion about what is and isn’t appropriate for an elected official to post on social media about city employees.
Thomas: Complained to aldermen
She also objected to our characterizing her as one of 3 “anti-Levasseur” Republican aldermen, saying “No one knows what my vote would have been because we didn’t have the meeting.” She said she supports Levasseur but had concerns over the postings and wanted the meeting to hash it out. Mayor Jay Ruais, she said, had neither donated to her campaign nor done anything to help it, countering our reporting that he’d pressured certain GOP aldermen, including her and Alderman Norm Vincent (R-Ward 11) into tossing Levasseur from the chairmanship.
Following this discussion, we contacted Clerk Normand to find out exactly what happened with respect to these meetings.
Normand said he’d received an email from Alderman Pat Long (D-Ward 3) wanting to call a special meeting. He said he called Long after receiving the email and was told that Thomas, Vincent and Alderman Chris Morgan (R-Ward 1) were also interested in holding a special meeting. Normand then called the Democratic aldermen listed in Long’s email to confirm they wanted the meeting They did. He then called Morgan, Vincent and Thomas. Ten aldermen having agreed to the meeting, it was scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, at 6 PM, publicly posted and noticed to the BMA.
Prior to announcing the meeting, Normand contacted Levasseur to let him know the meeting had been scheduled, then aldermen Crissy Kantor (R-Ward 6), Ross Terrio (R-Ward 7) and Ed Sapienza (R-Ward 8).
Normand asserted that it wasn’t an “emergency meeting,” as originally reported, because there was more than twenty four hours between the time the meeting was posted and the time it was held. The time stamps on the documents confirm that.
Normand: Caught in the crosshairs
In separate interviews conducted in conjunction with writing this article, neither Thomas nor Vincent said they’d spoken to Long about calling a special meeting prior to or after receiving Normand’s phone call. Thomas said she quizzed Normand about “what it meant” to agree to a meeting and what it was about. She did not give an immediate answer, wanting to think about it before settling on a decision.
Vincent similarly said he had no knowledge of the Democrats’ move to call a special meeting, saying the first he’d heard of it was from Normand. Similar to Thomas, his understanding of the meeting was that it was about clarifying what was and wasn’t proper for an elected official to post on social media about employees and to adopt rules accordingly. He said agreeing to the meeting “wasn’t anti-Joe at all,” that he likes and supports him and that this meeting turned into something he didn’t expect, blaming “rhetoric” and “spotlight rangers” for the “discord” that developed. He said he’d hadn’t discussed the meeting with the mayor.
(Publisher’s note: As of the time of publication, Ald. Morgan had not responded to our inquiry. We will update this article with any response he provides.)
The meeting gets put off
Long: Set it in motion
In wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier that day, Ruais contacted Normand and asked him to conduct a phone poll of the aldermen to request the meeting be postponed until September 17th. The board’s seven Democrats all voted no. Six of the board’s seven Republicans voted yes. Terrio could not be reached. That vote failed not because a majority had voted “no” but because eight aldermen are required to agree to a special meeting. With only seven aldermen voting to hold it, the meeting could not take place per the board’s rules, stated Normand. Therefore, it was canceled.
Ruais then told Normand to schedule a special meeting on September 17, saying he believed it was the will of the board to meet on the issue.
The one item on both special meeting agendas was for the board to enter into non-public session to discuss personnel matters which, if discussed in public, might negatively affect the reputation of an employee. The state’s Right to Know law prohibits public bodies from entering non-public session to discuss the conduct of an elected official. When asked why that was the agenda item in this matter where the conduct of an elected official was going to be discussed, Normand said there was a meeting with the city solicitor to determine how to proceed and that it was determined that non-public was appropriate since things might be said publicly about Director Thomas or other department employees that would damage their reputations. Normand declined to comment when asked if Ruais was present at the meeting. (Publisher’s note: As a former elected official, I disagree with this assessment and believe the meeting should have been held in public as it was ultimately about the conduct of an elected official.)
Levasseur moves to avoid vote
Vincent: Had no clue before being called
Early in the afternoon on September 17, with the vote looming, Levasseur called Normand and asked him to call members of the board to let him know he would be willing to step down from the chairmanship, if they agreed to cancel the meeting. After making the calls, Normand told Levasseur that the aldermen said stepping down wasn’t enough to avoid the meeting. They wanted him to publicly apologize to Director Thomas for his social media posts. Normand said, later that day, Levasseur sent him apology language that was identical to the last paragraph of the press release he issued after the meeting was supposed to take place. Normand shared that language with the mayor and aldermen. Given that Levasseur was going to step down and issue the apology, Ruais canceled the special meeting, which he was able to do because he had called it.
Levasseur’s press release Levasseur contained the apology Normand shared with the mayor and aldermen and announced that he had stepped down from the chairmanship. (Click here to read the release in full.) Saying he stepped down, in part, to protect Republican aldermen in the coming election by making it so they didn’t have to vote on the motion to remove him from the chairmanship, he launched a political broadside against Ruais, blaming him for GOP primary losses in wards one and three, where the Republican candidates were eliminated and two Democrats will face off in November for those seats. Wrote Levasseur:
We cannot afford to lose more seats to democrats (sic). Tough fiscal times are ahead for this city. My ego must be put into my back pocket to try and preserve [our] majority. Ruais must finally step up and proactively get all republicans (sic) elected.
It didn’t end there
Levasseur’s press release didn’t sit well with Alderman Christine Fajardo (D-Ward 4). In an email to Normand, Fajardo demanded to know when the board could expect Levasseur’s “formal resignation letter-addressed to us-that we can review and accept before we’re asked to take a vote on whether or not to hold a special meeting. before October 7th?” She complained about the information relayed in the phone calls regarding Levasseur’s offer to resign and demanded “the proper notification of the Chairman’s resignation by 10am tomorrow, along with a properly documented roll call on the decision of whether or not to hold a special meeting between now and October 7th.” She claimed:
As far as I am concerned, I have not received any formal resignation, and the votes cast in the phone poll were only to postpone a meeting—not to accept a press release in place of his resignation.
Ruais: Rescheduled meeting
In reply, Normand wrote:
As we discussed on the phone again this morning, Alderman Levasseur stepped down from his position as board chairman, effective 9/17/25. He vacated that position which as I write this, remains vacant. There is no subsequent action to take with regards to his decision except for this board to select your next chair. If the board wants to formally accept his action, you can certainly do that at your next meeting if that is what is deemed appropriate.
With respect to a “phone poll” conducted yesterday; there was no phone poll. Alderman Levasseur contacted me at approximately 1:45 PM yesterday and asked me to contact the board with an offer to step down as chair immediately if the scheduled 6 PM meeting was cancelled. That is exactly what I did. As most of you can attest, there was significant back and forth between the other members of the board and Alderman Levasseur, through me, to resolve this matter. In hindsight, maybe I should have refused the assignment but to be absolutely clear, I was trying to facilitate a resolution to an extremely complicated and unprecedented situation in just three hours before, as I believed, the public would begin heading to city hall for this meeting.
Since the mayor asked for the special meeting to be rescheduled for September 17, he could cancel it without a phone poll or permission of the board. Yesterday, I was merely relaying the details of “why” as quickly as I could before a decision was made so each of you would at least have a basic understanding of what had transpired. Had it been a board-requested meeting, like the previously scheduled special meeting on September 10, I would have conducted a phone poll, as Mike and I did on that date. (All emphasis in the original.)
Fajardo, whose earlier phone call with Normand was said to have been very angry (when asked about it, Normand would only confirm they had a phone discussion), sent an email apologizing for not recognizing he was
…put in an untenable position when you were asked by Alderman Lavasseur, the Mayor, and this board, to essentially do our collective political bidding, while carefully navigating the norms, rules, and laws that do not account for this level of chaos. For that, I want to apologize. I know that I aimed my frustration at the situation directly at you, failing to stop and consider that while I was displeased with the course of events, you in fact, handled it all very professionally and with care.
Fajardo: Not satisfied
Her reference to aiming her frustration directly at Normand appears to confirm that she was less than cordial in her call with him.
Levasseur hit back at Fajardo for refusing to accept his resignation and for continuing to push for a special meeting. In a statement given to Girard at Large, he wrote:
So she does what she accuses me of doing but at a seriously much higher scale. Screaming at [Normand] on the phone, badgering him for two days because she didn’t get her pound of flesh. Now you know why I didn’t want to be at that hostile meeting with salivating democrats (sic) and rhinos hellbent on raging like a bunch of lunatics at me.
In an email to Normand and the board, responding to Fajardo’s email, he wrote:
I for one want to thank you Matt for your time and effort on this matter. As for Alderman Fajardo thank you for apologizing to one of the city’s best employees. I appreciate your groveling apology to him after your vicious attacks and bullying of him because you did not get your chance to do the same to me on Wednesday night. Hopefully it was recorded so the world could hear your vicious meltdown. Look in the mirror lady before you go off on anyone else. Also, for the record I stepped down from the chair. I didn’t resign, and I stepped down on my own terms not yours or anyone else’s: and I did NOT step down because I violated anything in the city charter or any rule of the Board. I stepped down because I am sick and tired of you people attacking me for going after my first amendment right to say what I damn well please on my tv show and my social media. I am tired of you people thinking you have the right to tell or force to shut up or tell me what I can say or do and how I say and do it. You’re not the thought police even though you think you are. If you people don’t like my social media posts, opinions and criticisms then don’t watch. I don’t watch CNN so don’t watch me. Pretty simple. Have a great weekend.
Levasseur: At the center of the storm
She replied with a clear dig at Levasseur’s apology to Director Thomas, writing: “Oh, I’m sorry Alderman Lavasseur…did I hurt your feelings?”
For their part, aldermen Thomas and Vincent want the “drama” put behind them. Both expressed frustration with the time and effort this controversy has spawned and the negativity it’s created around the board.
In saying she didn’t know how she would vote at the special meeting because she didn’t know what to expect, she said the matter is now closed. “I did want Joe to take accountability and he did,” she said. She’s hopeful that the board will elect a new chairman and move on with city business.
Vincent is “hoping that at the October meeting we can move forward and accomplish what we want to accomplish as a board. I want to do what I was elected to do,” stating that he’s not knocked on any door where someone told him they wanted him to pay attention to this kind of “palace intrigue.”
They might not get their wish with Fajardo telling Normand in her apology email, “As Alderman Lavasseur stepped down from his role as Chair before this board could make that decision for him, I’m happy to leave any unfinished business between us and him till October 7th.”
The aldermen are expected to elect a new chairman at their meeting on October 7, 2025.
