Welcome to another contributor under the Publius byline.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION:
Discussion of the warrant article to overturn the prohibition on towns employees being selectmen.
There is one very important warrant article on the ballot this year. It is a petition warrant article to overturn last years voter approved warrant article prohibiting town employees from being selectmen.
Look, lets be brutally honest here, none of this would be necesary if the people who are town employees while serving were willing to do the right thing and step aside on matters involving their depts. or town employee matters. But they refused until ordered to, and that has brought us to the point where a clear majority of the voters said NO!!
Unfortunately, the actions of a few have made necesary the restriction on the many. However the current ordinance DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM SERVING! They simply have to do as Mr. Sullivan did and either resign or take a leave of absence from their town jobs to serve.
This is not some great restriction as these employees have told the residents at town meeting. It is the exact same policy, in force in EVERY SCHOOL BOARD IN THE STATE! as well as many towns and cities. This is not depriving the town of 38 years of experience as one town employee said at town meeting, Why wouldn't that town employee offer that experience where it may be helpful, anyway? same with the contact built up over that time, if you are going to use that experience and contacts to help the town you will do it with or without the position.
Please notice that the prime advocates of overturning last years vote are the very same people in a position to benefit from it.
Please look at the difference between 2004-2005 and 2006. There has been a vast difference in the last year, and it will only get better as we purge our governing body of these conflicts.
W have heard so much about RSA 667:9 "specifically allowing" part-time town employees to be selectmen and budget committee members. That is not true, it DOES NOT specifially allow it, it DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES! This is an oversight, an omission, not a PERMISSION!
There is a great body of established law in NH preventing this, as Rockingham Superior Court has noted in it's Order's telling our selectmen to knock it off!
The landmark case law on Conflict of interest in the state of NH is "Littleton v. Taylor" the NH Supreme Court stated that "The common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices, states that one cannot hold two offices where the work of one is subordinate to that of the other, as governmental checks and balances are removed"
I can not state it better. Please defeat Article 23 this year!
Thank you,
Mark Acciard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
EDITORIAL-
A voice of compassion, an example of fairness and reasonable government.
One who believes in the strength and comfort you, your children and your family can draw from good government leadership.
A person who knows Atkinson is our home -- our most important possession that must be preserved and protected through fair taxes and sound community planning and where our children must be safe to grow to become a new generation of leaders.
One who knows that the citizens of Atkinson are all neighbors with her leadership to be dedicated and responsive to all.
One who believes that when those from Atkinson have served our nation and honors are deserved, those honors must be given.
In Valerie Tobin, we now have a leader we know we can entrust with these responsibilities because they are part of her character.
It is our honor to endorse Valerie for election to Atkinson’s Board of Selectmen.
Just a note for those who wish to count the deer.
In January 08 this blog had 16,000 hits and 1,500 unique visitors (for the month).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
EDITORIAL-
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ." [TP, 1776]
We take no small measure of umbrage at such a hostile official act against this BLOG’s patron. Therefore, a timely Editorial comment is both appropriate and necessary.
Discussion of Atkinson’s financial direction, from any viewpoint, is fundamental and encouraged and we will always attempt to limit and correct errors.
However, Righteous indignation towards purported error of such inconsequential nature is not appropriate.
The ENTIRE car deal is problematic. If it was caused by poor judgement, improper exercise of authority, neglect or mistake or even specious reasoning, this will never trump the facts that the entire questionable transaction started and ended within a very small circle of confidants.
We find the entire circumstances surrounding the disposition of the police Cruiser highly irregular at the least and the "explanations" somewhat trifling and exhaustive of our intellect.
Mr. Consentino: It’s time to go. Being Chief of Atkinson’s Police Department is NOT a birthright. That is a fabled legend of yesteryear.
Historically in Atkinson, police chief appointments were made "under the hand of the selectmen" for terms of one year at a time, as was also the case in the beginning of Mr. Consentino’s assorted and discontinuous stream of appointments to this position.
Your only remaining credential established on a claim of indispensability has faded.
So time is neigh. Plan a graceful exit, Clean out your desk, Accept the gratitude and tearful sentiments from some. We plan no editorial recriminations. It is time. Thank you for your service, We wish you a long and happy retirement. Bon Voyage.
LETTER
"To All Atkinson Residents,
I am writing to ask for your help. A member of the Atkinson Police Department needs our help. I am here to ask for your help in Corporal John Lapham's fight for his life. As you are aware, John has been diagnosed with Leukemia. He has been once again hospitalized with an infection that is threatening his life. He is one of the bravest people that I have ever met. He has never asked of anything from the residents of the town. Now is our chance to step up and help both him and his family out. As everyone is aware John has been out of work for a few months. His family has been busy helping John to get better. He needs our help, and I am hoping that this town can step up to the plate and help. From the moment that I met John, I have admired him. He does alot, but never asks for anything in return. He has helped so many people in this town. I for one am one of those people. Please help him.
There is a fund set-up in his name at TDBanknorth in Plaistow. Any amount will help John, while he is out of work. It would be great if this town could help ease a burden off his wife.
Thank You
Also if anyone would like to send a card, please address it to:
John Lapham
c/o Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Ctr.
Inpatient mail
75 Francis Street
Boston, MA 02115
United States
Please show Corporal John Lapham, that this community can stand up and show our support to those in need. I for one, miss John and can not wait until he can get better and return to work. Please show him that we support him. "
16 comments:
I have a question.
The warrant we received in the mail lists the mentioned article as Article 21. This article says it's Article 23. Did Mark make a mistake? Where did the two other articles come from, and why didn't we have them at the Deliberative Session? As I recall, the warrant needs to be posted at the end of January (last Monday, maybe?) according to state law. It looks as if the warrant was altered after the Town Meeting. Not only do I think that's not legal; it smells pretty rotten.
There is no question that Mr. Acciard is 100% right on this. Article 23 MUST be defeated or the abuses will continue.
Our town officials have PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt that it is NOT in the taxpayers best interest to allow town employees to also be Selectman. You can be an employee or a selectman, but NOT BOTH.
Defeat Article 23.
I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Mr. Acciard, this needs to be defeated!
As an elderly person in Atkinson, I was convinced that Mr. Acciard just hated the Chief. I believed the BS about a vendetta because of a traffic ticket, as ridiculous as that sounds now.
But I have watched Phil over the last two years, and I have watched Mr. Acciard, especially the meetings with both of them together, and I have realized which one is right.
I have seen Phil yell and scream at people just for criticizing him, And his puppet Sapia always has a supportive comment.
I have seen Mr. Acciard act graciously towards Phil, and agree with him wherever prudent. he has always been courteous and respectful.
Mr. Acciard Although I cant say this publicly for obvious reasons, I owe you an apology.
Defeat This article!
Hey!! It's nice to see a Town Official on here! Whether you know him or like him or not...he's here, and I think that's a good thing. If more town officials would get in on this, maybe we could resolve some issues...or at least talk about them.
Better yet...maybe they're reading it and will learn some valuable lessons!
Mr. Consentino is no longer a selectman and now we have only Mr. Childs.
Even though the article last year said prohibit... from being elected to the board of selectmen, he has chosen to run again, once again puting his own desires before the voters wishes. Anyone who does that should not be a selecman.
And what about Mrs. Morelli, she ran last year, refused to take her seat. and is now running again.
These people are merely spoiling the ballot for those who want to serve!
Send a message, kick the bums out!
The fact that Mr. Childs is running for selectman without a resignation from being a town employee is a disgrace to the town of Atkinson , and to it's voters.
Can someone please clarify exactly what would happen if Fred Childs wins the selectmen's election and this article (21 or 23) is defeated. How is the vacant selectmen's seat filled?
I would assume that the candidate with the second largest number of votes would be the new Selectman; however, I also believe that this is a matter for the Moderator.
Mr. Moderator....are you there?
not necesarily, and this is the problem. The Law states that if there is a vacancy the rest of the board or committee is free to appoint someone.
So while we would hope that they would take the person with the second most votes, they don't have to, and that means the election was nullified because of TWO TOWN EMPLOYEES ARROGANCE AND DESIRE TO PUT THEMSELVES BEFORE THE PEOPLES VOTE!!!
This is why This aticle should fail, and Mr. Childs and Mrs. Morelli should not be elected!
On the other hand!
The rule is that a person in office continues to hold that office until their successor is “qualified”. It is argued that if Childs is elected, and the employee disqualification law remains, he can not be qualified. Therefore, he continues to hold the office. We then have a Banana Republic. The question remaining. Tolerate it or man the barricades?
All of you are dead wrong. Only the Superior court can remove a lawfully elected selectman (read the RSA’s so you can speak as an informed individual). There is NO enabling legislation (RSA) that gives the town the authority to remove a legally elected selectman. There is NO enabling legislation (RSA) that gives the town the authority to prevent someone for signing up for and running for office. The only legal way for the town to enforce the conflict ordinance that was passed last year is to fire the employee so that the conflict is removed. As an employer, the town has a legal right to enforce its employment laws, PERIOD. It has NO right to supersede the rights of the voters who may decide to elect someone and create the conflict. It has no right to supersede the rights of an individual to seek elected office. Let me ask you this, would you want each town to be able to do that? I wouldn’t. Giving towns that kind of power could lead to all kinds of injustices like creating an ordinance that says you have to live in town 5 years before holding elected office. Do you remember the Home Rule constitutional amendment that failed a few years ago? It would have given towns the right to establish rules of law without enabling legislation from the state. IT FAILED FOR GOOD REASON!
You need to understand that from a legal perspective, what the town adopted last year is an employment rule. Do you folks GET IT that the state and federal constitution put an extordinarily high value on the will of the voters (read that as democracy at work) and go just as far to protect it. If you don’t believe what I’m telling you, ask someone in the human resources department of a NH school district that has a similar rule. If they tell you something different, please post it here and I’ll eat my computer screen (so that I can eat my electronic words).
One last thing, I see so much on this blog about democracy and rights. I suggest that you folks learn a little bit about civics in the State of NH before you go espousing your views and talking about how someone is trampling on your constitutional rights. Sounds to me like the majority of you don’t have a clue about what your rights are or more importantly, what your responsibilities are to protect the rights of others. Also, it sounds like many of you want to trample on my rights as a voter; and I don’t appreciate that!
OK, I’ll step down from my soap box now and take some Prozac. But I do feel better now. Thanks for listening.
To Anonymous @ 1:08 pm
I’d like to take a stab at refuting your misapprehensions. I’ll go through this point by point.
First no one is attempting to remove a sitting selectman. He is coming up for re-election, and is running in spite of the people’s decision to prohibit “town employees from being elected to” the board of selectmen. You are mistaken, there is enabling legislation allowing a town to REMOVE a selectman, even though no one is trying to do that. And I suspect that you know that but are trying to obfuscate the issue.
Firing the employee is not the only way to enforce last years ordinance. Last year the employee was offered a choice, take her seat and give up her job or vice versa. She chose the latter, and funny enough is running again this year.
The town is not superceding the rights of Mr. Childs to seek office, in case you haven’t noticed he IS seeking office. He has not been prevented from doing so, he, if elected will have a choice to make, the sad fact is that if elected, and he chooses not to give up his job, he will have succeeded in nullifying the election for the other contenders.
No one has established laws without enabling legislation. This law was established under 31:39-a Conflict of Interest Ordinances. – The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed. Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees, establishing incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office. Any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption. The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section.
Yes, we get it that the Constitution placed extraordinarily high value on the will of the voters, if only Mr. Childs and Mrs. Morelli placed AS high a value on it.
And no one is trampling upon your rights. You also have the right to run if you wish, as long as you are not a town employee.
If this ordinance is so heinous, why does every school district in the state operate under similar restrictions, as do many towns and cities. If you ask NHMA why this issue doesn’t come up more frequently they will tell you that most communities do not elect employees to supervise themselves. And it never would have been an issue here but for the arrogance, and lack of integrity on the part of two individuals, who refused to do the right thing, one of them still refusing even after the court ordered it.
So much for my opinion, now I’ll hop off my soapbox, and wait for the debate.
Please post the RSA that says that a town has the authority to remove a sitting selectmen. I have gone through the RSA's and no such RSA exists. There is enabling legislation in 31:39a to allow a town to develop conflict of interest ordinances. IT DOES NOT GIVE THE TOWN AUTHORITY TO REMOVE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL!!!! The town must petition the court for removal.
From Atkinson’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance: "If the Selectmen determine, by a majority vote, that removal is warranted, the elected or appointed member shall be given the opportunity to resign. If said member chooses not to resign, a petition to remove shall be filed with the Superior Court."
From RSA 31:39-a: "The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section."
That DOES NOT MEAN the court will agree that the person should be removed from an elected position if they are an employee. In fact, there is at least one case I have read (for a school district) where the court remanded back to the school board to deal with this as an employment issue (e.g. fire the employee if they won’t resign from the elected position).
Bottom line, for the case where the conflict is between employment and elected position, the court (and school districts) treat this as a violatin of an employment rule and grounds for dismissal of the employee.
In the case where a public official, in their official capacity, violates the ordinance (e.g. does not step down from a vote where they have a conflict), removal from office requires that the town prove to the court that the violation occurred and that it rises to the level of seriousness that removal from elected office is warranted. That my friend is a HIGH hurdle in the courts...and for very good reason. A democractically elected official is in their position because of the will of the people. The burdon of proof that the offense rises to the level of overturning the majority vote of a town is on the plaintiff. "Innocent until proven guilty". Mrs. Grant argued her case for 3 days in Superior Court in November and she failed to meet the burdon of proof that the selectmen committed any wrong doing, let alone did anything bad enough to warrant removal from office. This blog "pooh poohed" the judge's decision but if you want to argue about that case Mr. Acciard, start by posting the text of the decision of the judge and then we can talk about facts, not fiction.
If it is the will of the people to elect Mr. Childs, knowing about his employment (and everyone in town does), who are you to say that: "...he will have succeeded in nullifying the election for the other contenders." ??? If he refuses to quit his job or resign his post has selectman, the Selectman will fire him. If the Selectmen don't take action, any registered voter(s) can take the town to court. The likely outcome will be that the court remands back to the selectmen to fire Childs.
Let the voters decide!!!!
Back to the Prozac.
In Response to Anonymous@11:45am
I didn’t mention the Grant Case, and frankly I don’t know how that came up, I thought we were talking about Article 2007-23, the attempt to overturn last year’s prohibition on town employees supervising their own work by serving on or being elected to th board of selectmen or budget committee.
We obviously are discussing different issues here.
The town is not, to the best of my knowledge trying to remove a sitting selectmen. If you find differently please explain how Article 2007-23 will do that.
Mr. Childs is coming up for re-election. He signed up even thought the VOTERS last year passed an ordinance stating that no town employee may BE ELECTED TO the board of selectmen.
The voters decided not to let town employees full or part time be elected to the board of selectmen or the budget committee. The voters have the right to do that and the enabling legislation for it is RSA31:39a as stated in my last comment.
This why I say that his being on the ballot COULD have the effect of nullifying the election for Mr. Morse and Ms. Tobin:
First current town law(article 2006-21) prohibits him, as a town employee, from being elected to the board of selectmen. It also prohibits Mrs. Morelli, as a town employee, from being elected to, the budget committee. This means that anyone with a shred of decency or honor would realize that they are currently unqualified, based on current town law, to be elected to the office.
Second, for the sake of argument lets say that they are elected; Last year Mrs. Morelli chose not to give up her town employment and forced the budget committee to appoint someone. Yet she is running again in the exact same circumstances. The law states that the committee must appoint to fill the vacancy, it doesn’t necesarily have to be the person with the second most votes. What the Budget Committee did to be open and fair is announce that we were seeking letters of intent from people who wished to serve. We did not appoint Cronies as is usually done on other boards. We received letters from Ms. Princiotta who had garnered the second most votes, and from Ms. Fleming. We had them both come in to a public meeting and state their reasons for wanting to serve. Then the committee voted publicly on which one would join. The committee went with the person who had run the campaign, Ms. Princiotta. But the fact is we could have appointed anyone.
So, lets say that Fred gets the most votes, and doesn’t want to give up his town job, and therefore doesn’t take his seat on the board. The board would be free to appoint someone. It doesn’t HAVE to be the second highest vote getter, although we would hope so. That would have the effect of nullifying the election for the other two candidates, i the selectmen chose someone else.
That is why I said that!
Why is this such an issue? The voters said no, and that is it! Every school district in the state prohibits district employees from serving on the school board. Manchester demands firing of an employee who runs for, and wins election as soon as the votes are counted. Nashua, windham, concord, bow, derry. many towns prohibit town employees from being selectmen. It is a no brainer, like the NH Supreme Court said “ The common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices states that “noone may hold tow offices where the work of one is subordinate to that of the other, as governmental checks and balances are removed”
This isn’t an issue of what one employee wants, it is an issue of an elected official doing what the voters told him to do. If you cant do what the voters say, then you shouldn’t hold office!
In response to the last two Anon comments, each posted just before macciard's responses.....I think the Moderator has arrived!!! Hey Frank! Thank you for joining the blog, and for presenting intelligent debates!
My question to you is: If Article 23 passes, and Mr. Childs wins the election, how are you going to handle it?
To last anonymous I think you meant to say;
What if article 23 FAILS and Fred is elected what will you do then?
Post a Comment