The Verdict is in......

Sapia and Childs keep their Jobs as selectmen...... for now!

While I am certain that we will hear from them on Monday night, just how innocent and victimized they were, but here are a few facts from the case file that might prove interesting, First of all Why Mrs. Grant failed to unseat them.

First this was truly a David and Goliath case; The private citizen, unschooled in the law, insistent upon representing herself, and on the other side of the bar.... One of the more reknowned municipal law attornies in Southern NH, Sumner Kalman. Mr. Kalman has been waging these battles in court for over 20 years and mostly successfully. This was clearly a case where good legal advice would have paid dividends.

Secondly, it is almost immpossible to remove an elected official. This is because any judge is cognizant of the fact that this is tantamount to overturning an election. Yes, the law says in 42:1 Oath Required. – Every town officer shall make and subscribe the oath or declaration as prescribed by part 2, article 84 of the constitution of New Hampshire and any such person who violates said oath after taking the same shall be forthwith dismissed from the office involved. But in reality the offenses have to be numerous, or egregious to ACTUALLY be removed. Yet Mrs. Grant attempted the Herculean task of trying to remove not one corrupt official but an entire board of them! And for this attempt, We the people of Atkinson owe her and all those who have put their time, money, reputations, on the line to stand up for what is right, a debt of gratitude.

Thirdly, The case was originaly against the ENTIRE BOARD at that time which included selectman Consentino. When Consentino failed to regain office in March of 2006, Kalman got him dismissed from the case as he could no longer be removed from office. This was brilliant in as much as the most egregious offenses were committed by this earnest gentleman. Even the Rockingham Superior Court in it's Order on Mrs. Grant's petition for removal states; "Mr. Consentino's behavior, which entailed a violation of this court's orders." and in the very next sentence "It was not incumbent upon selectman Childs and Sapia to provide a route for redress to citizens affected or offended by MR. CONSENTINO'S CONTEMPTUOUS DISREGARD OF JUDGE MCHUGH'S ORDERS." and lastly the next sentence " Messrs. Childs and Sapia appropriately attempted to go about their duties as selectmen as best they could IN LIGHT OF MR. CONSENTINO'S BEHAVIOR."

The result was that once Consentino was removed from the case as a defendent, all of the actions he committed were off the table for discussion. And even though his actions, chacterized by the Court as, contemptuous, were the prime reason for the suit in the first place, thereby costing the Town thousands of dollars, Selectman Sapia and Childs voted to pay his personal attorney in the matter with taxpayer money! And what did the town get for it's hard- earned money? You may ask, On 31 separate questions asked of the Chief by Mrs. Grant, the answer was "On advise of counsel, I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me." This from a 30 year Chief of police! If you "refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate you" doesn't it follow that you did something incriminating in the first place? By the way, how could the two defendents, who benefitted from Mr. Consentino's testimony, vote to spend taxpayer money on his personal legal expenses? Isn't that a conflict? They also received Mr. Sapia making the ridiculous statement that "We never cut anyone off, or threatened to remove anyone from meetings" This was an attempt to contradict Budget Committee Chair Acciard's testimony that the Board of Selectmen threatened him with removal(by the police) if he continued to ask the board how they were able to purchase an SUV 8 days after the election without even a vote to do so. At the April 18, 2005 selectmen's meeting. A review of the tape of that meeting shows the chairman of the board of selectmen saying in response to Acciard's question "we will not answer questions on that subject, if you continue with these questions I will have my men remove you" .

Ultimately this case was the victim of a weak pleading, self- representation unschooled in the law, and the timing that allowed Mr. Consentino to once again escape any accountability for his actions.

It appeared that the Court agreed with this blog in that one can do many things that are morally reprehensible, but technically legal. You cross the line of what is the right thing long before you get to the line of what is legal. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have town officials that stopped short BEFORE crossing the what is right line, and never got anywhere near the illegal line?