FRANKLIN — The two sides of a lawsuit over Franklin’s handling of a civil rights complaint are continuing to negotiate, with a second settlement offer currently being considered by the defendants.

The plaintiff, business owner Miriam Kovacs, brought the suit in August after she was dissatisfied with the city’s response to antisemitic threats and vandalism against her Central Street eatery, The Broken Spoon. She also claims she suffered retaliation when she spoke publicly about the response, and considers the city to have inadequately responded to her request for public documents.

The suit names the City of Franklin and its police department as defendants, as well as individual officials Mayor Jo Brown, City Manager Judie Milner, Police Chief David Goldstein, Police Sgt. Daniel Ball, City Councilors Jay Chandler, Valerie Blake and Vincent Ribas, and former Councilor April Bunker.

In November, Mike Lewis, of Rath Young Pignatelli, the firm representing Kovacs, offered to settle the suit if Franklin paid Kovacs’ legal fees — around $7,000 at that point — and also agreed to a list of reforms.

Those reforms included: the implementation of a training program for police regarding hate crimes; for the city and police department to adopt a three-tiered protocol for responding to hate crimes and civil rights violations as defined by the state attorney general in 2019; for the city to identify a civil rights designee; the creation of a police oversight commission; for Kovacs to receive 10 days’ notice if she or her business is to be discussed in public meeting in a manner which might negatively affect her standing in the community; and that the city and specific officials undergo training on the state’s Right-to-Know laws.

That offer was rejected by the defendants, with Paul Fitzgerald, the city's attorney, calling it akin to “total capitulation” and insulting to the defendants, several of whom had dedicated their lives to public service.

A second settlement offer, delivered on Dec. 14, asks for the same reforms, but from a smaller group of defendants. The current offer proposes to release Brown, Chandler, Ribas and Bunker. Remaining defendants would be the City of Franklin, the FPD, Goldstein, Ball and Milner.

Fitzgerald said he received the offer and is planning to meet with the defendants this week.

“There is going to be a discussion with them about it in the next couple of days, whatever comes out of it will be brought forward,” Fitzgerald said on Wednesday. “I do see some issues with it in that it still asks the defendants to admit culpability where they don’t see there is any. ... That is something that may arise and will require further discussion.”

In previous interviews, Kovacs said her goal is to create a safer community, not to gain financially from her troubles.

“Someone has to stand up to all of this,” Kovacs said.

Speaking about the most recent settlement offer, Lewis said they identified defendants who could be released without compromising their desired outcome.

“Those are the ones we’ve narrowed our proposal with respect to,” Lewis said. “This case is principally around open government and accountability.”

‘Bruised egos’

Jason Gerhard, a state representative whose district includes Franklin as well as Northfield, has asked Franklin to account for its rejection of the initial settlement offer.

“Being a state representative for Franklin and Northfield, I am acutely aware of the financial challenges facing Franklin at this time. I’ve attended several city council meetings where emotions ran high when increases in trash fees were discussed, among other topics,” Gerhard wrote in a letter to city officials. “People are over-taxed, over-worked and seemingly nearing their breaking point.”

Gerhard urged the city to consider the settlement offer. He noted a previous statement by Fitzgerald, in which he seemed to suggest the initial offer was rebuffed because it was shared with news media at the same time that it was sent to his office.

Gerhard wrote, “The city’s position is that transparency caused this settlement to be rejected out of hand? You must be joking. I’m just a carpenter but it sure seems as if this is a case of bruised egos while ignoring the taxpayer who is going to be forced to burden the costs of extended litigation

These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.