The history of the Elderly affairs Dept., and it's two directors

Welcome to another contributor under the publius byline

Publius: ARTICLE SUBMISSION

The history of the Elderly affairs Dept., and it's two directors

As an elderly resident of Atkinson who was involved in town politics about 20 years ago, I think the town needs to know the evolution of the elderly affairs program.

First of all it evolved out of the general welfare duties of the selectmen, around 1978 or 79. At that time there was one person in town that went out of her way to fight for elderly issues, and that was Carol Grant. Mrs. Grant was a selectmen and assumed these responsibilities as they were selectmen duties that noone seemed to be addressing. After leaving office she continued to do the job becuse the selectmen were not. Selctman at the time Bill Rollins decided in the early-eighties to create an official Director of Elderly Affairs, and to appoint Carol Grant as the first such Director, so that she would have official clout with which to approach state and federal agencies for assistance. There was NO BUDGET at this time for the elderly, that would not come for many years. Carol was tireless in her adopted duties. She brought elderly people to her home for food, rest, and company. She applied for state and federal grants and assistance through those agencies for whatever the needs were for the town's elderly. She made thanksgiving dinners and baskets for the elderly, she called to check on them frequently. All of this was done out of the goodness of her heart, and the depth of her own wallet. No town money was forthcoming.

There was Ruth McPhearson who many of us have seen in a picture with the chief, he in full dress uniform for his photo op, when he brought her soup one day. Yes, he was kind to her, and he solicited and received on or before her death donations to his donation account. Quid pro Quo. What is not generally known is that Carol Grant provided most if not all of Ruth's care for her last months on Earth. Even bringing her to their home so that she could shower, and eat a home cooked meal. The Grant's solicited nothing, and received nothing for this work.

Carol even went to the school board to ask them to abate school district taxes for elderly living on fixed incomes. The district said no, and Carol, as selectman went ahead and did it anyway, even though, upon review, DRA said she couldn't do that. She took hard and controversial stands on behalf of her charges, and never waivered. She also did not take taxpayer money to do all this, and never announced at selectmen's meetings how much she was doing for the elderly. She never canvassed them for votes. She never used them as political cover, or as a voting bloc. She just did what she could to help, without appreciation or recognition.

In 1993, The chief took over as elderly affairs director, he turned what was a comprehensive program into mainly a taxi service run out of the police dept. The petitions to state and federal agencies for assistance stopped. The research into what governmental assistance was out there stopped. He placed an elderly affairs line in his police budget to fund his program. He sent out birthday and christmas cards out of this budget as well as providing rides for the elderly. He was into the selectmen's meetings at least once a month to pat himself on the back for the services he had provided with taxpayer money. Gone was the honor and integrity that were the hallmarks of the program under it's former director. His initial budget request was roughly $3,000 if I remember right. It has increased every year. When the budget committee started asking questions about accountability in 2001, it was roughly $7,000/yr. plus what he spent out of the police budget, and the donation account, by this time he had four years of practice soliciting donations form the very people he was providing services to, into a donation account which he controlled and spent as he wished. He is quoted in the minutes of the June 30, 2003 selectmen's meeting as follows;

"Phil Consentino stated that he considered it a confidential database and names did not need to be given out. He was not going to give out the names unless he was legally challenged."

In 2004, when asked by the budget committee if he referred seniors to help from state and federal agencies, he did not know what help was out there, he did not know the schedules for Lamprey, he did not know the services provided by Salem Caregivers, or any of the other agencies out there. His was a glorified taxi service. The result of that questioning was officer Anderson becoming familiar with these services, but the program still does not primarily refer seniors to other agencies for help. Finally, in 2005, for the first time the town heard from officer Anderson that 61 people used the program, and it gave those 61 people 727 rides. This on a budget of $16,000 plus the overlap from the police dept. plus approximately $8,000 from the donation account.

We went from an honorable program ran by a dedicated individual who asked for nothing for herself, no recognition, no praise, no votes, no adulation. To an still honorable program, although much more expensive, with much less accountablility, run by an egoist, who screams from the rooftops everytime he gives someone a ride, or sends them a birthday card(all with taxpayer money) or receives a letter thanking him. And uses these fine people for political support. Who can forget the letter sent to the elderly in the town elderly database, by the chief, three years ago, when Fred Childs was running against Janine Sawyer-Stanley, excoriating Janine for being a friend of Brian Boyle's and praising Fred for his years of town employment. This letter was sent to the elderly in that database he manages the weekend before the election in an effort to sway an election, and it worked! When asked if he used his position to help a candidate, he stated that he made the copies himself, outside the PD. But what noone cared to discuss was that the list itself is a taxpayer funded, and owned town resource. This is surely electionering.

Bottom line is that "all that glitters is not gold"!