Lack of ethics on display
One notable event at last monday's selectmen's meeting was the appearance of Lt. Baldwin to attempt to break the law by electioneering. This is when you use your official position to lobby for an candidate or issue. Lt. Baldwin tried to pitch his tower at the selectmen's meeting, Thank God selectman Sullivan had the presence of mind to stop it saying that it was unethical! Selectman Sapia did not have any such concerns, explaining why Lt. Baldwin's pitch was ok by him. The day before an election selectmen should not be discussing warrant article that are on the ballot the next day. Not that ethics have detered selectman sapia in the past. Well at least we will have plaenty to write about over the coming year.
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).
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. "
58 comments:
surprise, surprise, ethics are only for the other guy with Sapia. This is the guy who said they did nothng wrong when they bought the SUV without a warrant article or vote. The guy who when Polito sued the town offerred him sworn testimony to help his case AGAINST THE TOWN HE SWORE TO REPRESENT!
The moderator sued the town? for what? and did he win?
why didn't we hear about it? like we did the Grant case? and what exactly was the reason for that?
But wasn't Consentino asking everyone to go out and support the warrent for the wheelchair van, the evening before elections, also not ethical (can't say illegal because we know he does everything by the books)?
Can anyone explain the details of the lawsuit filed against the town by Mr. Polito ?
If you read an earlier post on Chief Murphy, you will see the topic of why Polito appealed to the Superior court to overturn a decision of the Planning Board.
Seems that Mike Murphy did a 180 in requiring that there be a fire lane from Boyle's Winslow Drive development to Woodlawn Ave. In fact, the original Winslow development required this fire lane (Murphy is on record, as is Early supporting this requirement).
Murphy Struck a deal with Boyle to trade fire hydrants for the fire lane. Boyle applied to the Planning Board to amend his subdivision plan to eliminate the fire lane. The Tribune reported that Polito claimed in court that this was a back room deal.
The issue was that Peter Lewis holds a mortgage on the lots in Boyle's development and has the water rights (all public record in the deeds that are recorded). Morse refused to step off the board for the vote and was later found to have violated the towns conflict of interest rules. In addition, Polito claimed that Stewart and Early (both firemen) should have stepped off the board because this was a fire issue and they were not impartial.
The long and shot of it was the law requires you to be a direct abutter to the property to make such an appeal to the court. Polito was not an abutter so the case was tossed so the result will never be known.
Moral of the story, Consentino is not the only one making back room deals!
To the last anon,
You are absolutely right that consentino wasn't the only one making back room deals.
While whining at selectmen's meetings about back room deals between Murphy and Boyle, Sapia offerred sworn testimony to Polito to help his case when it got to court. This was reported in the Eagle-Tribune on election day last year. Sapia even screamed at Acciard when Acciard asked him if the story were true. In the case of Polito v. Town of Atkinson, one of the people sworn to represent the town offerred to help out the other side before court. Can you say Ex-Parte Communication? By the Way THAT WOULD have gotten him thrown out of office if Mrs. Grant had brought it up in her suit.
Actually here is what happened from the case file and planning board meetings.
Turner Porter owned the project. site plan included a 12' wide paved path through woods connecting Winslow to Woodlawn. Murphy and Early were in favor, Consentino was against said "path doesn't give me anything" even then it was not about the town. When Boyle bought project he asked murphy if he would trade live hydrants on woodlawn for path(note: Academy area has no water, and path had a 90 degree bend in it and first 150' was someone's driveway, no guarantee of being clear) Murphy said yes. (Fire Chief will always trade path through woods uusable for truck for a live hydrant at builders expense). It was after this that Consentino decided the path was necesary "in case both roads became blocked by a falling tree." Ridiculous, Woodlawn dr. is 55years old never had a problem. And when Chief developed Stone Pound Ln. he didn't feel the need for secondary egress. Sapia, of course had to echo his masters opinion. They got Polito to sue town over this, (rumor has it they went to Sumner Kalman to do it them selves and he told them they cant sue the town they represent.) Polito filed case, case thrown out due to lack of standing, he lives over three miles away. Sapai argued that there were back room deals going on between Boyle and Murphy, while he was making a back room deal with Polito offering sworn testimony against the town. While he was sworn to represent it. This was reported in the Eagle-Tribune on election day last year. As I said before when we were at the polls Acciard read article in paper and asked Sapia if it were true. Sapai started screaming at him in front of everyone! Told him he wasn't the final authority on right and wrong! Told him that he wasn't always right and he should butt out. Acciard told Sapia that it was just plain wrong to testify against the town! Acciard said if Sapia were subpeonaed that would be one thing but to go and offer testimony to the other side was wrong! Sapia told him to mind his own business.
Case was later thrown out. Polito lost. Sapia lost. Town got water in a neighborhood that had none. Everybody won.
There's you and there's me and then there's........the special people.
You know the ones that the rules don't apply to, the ones that deserve that extra cut, the ones that SHOULD BE ASHAMED when and if they dare look in the mirror.
But never fear residents, what goes around definitely comes around.
I would venture a bet that these very same special people have oodles of private hurts, money problems, medical problems, divorce, screwed up kids and unresolved issues. So they can stay "special".
Me, I will remain average joe. Do the best that I can with the deck I am dealt. Try to be kind, honest and not to harm anyone or anything along the way.
Hey last anon: Would you consider running for Selectman next year?
Seenitdoneit, neither Sapia nor Killam testified against the town. All they did was sign an affidavit that Polito had expressed concern to them about the exchange for hydrants. These affidavits are in the court record. As for your accusations about Sapia & Polito, can you please refer to some facts or public record please? Sounds like speculation without it.
By the way, I suggest you look at the public record of Murphy's 180 on the fire lane. And if Morse had recused himself the application would have failed, Killam, Sapia, & Fletcher vote against. It would have especially failed had Early & Stewart recused themselves.
It still pisses me off that we paid for a ladder truck (oh excuse me, Quint pumper) to protect Lewis's over 55 project. The Planning Board screwed all of us by not making that a condition of approval for Lewis to buy that truck. Too many developer interests on the Planning Board! Mike doesn't care, he got his new toy. End of story.
You know, as a attorney myself, I have followed with great interest all of Atkinson's legal battles over the past three years or so. I have copies of the orders, and have read the case files, in some cases if I had the time I have been in court and seen the proceedings.
If you follow all of this drama, you find the there are two distinct factions at war here. There are the people who go to court sekeing nothing for themselves, only to get the court to oder our town officials to perform their duties in an honorable fashion. Then there are the town officials themselves, who want to do what they want to do, without objection. They use taxpayer money to fight these people, they don't care because it costs them nothing in the end.
In the Polito case, you are right, They did not testify, because it never got into that phase of a court trial. It was dismissed due to Mr. Polito's lack of standing. Had he hired an Attorney, he would have been told that up front and could have saved himself the $145.00 filing fee.
What Sapia did is much worse, it doesn't matter what the sworn affidavit said, he is sworn, as a selectman, to represent the town! That means when the town is being sued, you are on the side of the town! You don't help out the other side unless subpeonaed to. You don't offer sworn affidavits to help the other side's case. That is called ex-parte communication, and if he were an attorney he would have been disbarred for it! But then again, we HAVE TO, BY LAW, act ethically or we lose our license. Perhaps a similar law should be instituted for selectmen.
Maybe, after I clear some cases, I will write an article for submission detailing for all, the issues at hand in each of the legal battles our selectmen have waged.
Oh, and by the way, the corrobration of this Sapia incident was reported in the Eagle-Tribune on election day 2006. And the incident with Sapia screaming at Acciard happened at the polls. I know, I was there. Ask anyone who was there holding signs, they'll tell you.
I, for one, would love to hear an attorney's assessment of the legal cases reported in the paper. I am especially curious about the Acciard/Consentino battles. I have heard Phil's side, ad nauseum, at selectmen's meetings, but if memory serves, Acciard won, a number of times. What were the issues? Why did he win? How much did it cost us?
I, too, would love an attorney's view of our legal "situations".
I believe that Atty. Kalmam's job is to defend the town. If one of the officials does something stupid, it's his job to get them out of it as easily as possible. I suspect that Sumner has - more than once - advised town officials of right and wrong, and they chose not to listen. I would also suspect that Sumner had a few words for them when did they something stupid and told him about it after it was all done.
A view from an objective, non-involved attorney would be enlightening. On the other hand, the Town received advice from NHMA's legal eagle regarding employees serving as town officials and what they could or could not do. The reaction was "Well, that's just one lawyer's opinion".
Sumner can't say anything, but another attorney could!
Is there a method to impeach a selectman? It seems to be that if a selectman is knowingly breaking the law, then a course of impeachment should be pursued.
Yes and it has been tried already by Mrs. Grant, although had she had an attorney she may have been successful. The Courts generally do not look kindly on these petitions because it is tantamount to overturning an election. But the proceedure is to file a petition for removal with Rockingham Superior Court, under the authority of RSA 42:1. To win you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the selectman in question has violated his oath of office.
Don't even try, gentlemen. Several years ago, Plaistow tried and lost. They had petitioned signed by several people and they had evidence indicating the wrong-doing. The best thing to do is to get out act together and get Sapia out next election. Fred is kind of "soft". He'll go along with the majority in most cases. (Exception being the Viet Nam memorial._
to anon 3/18 6:29PM....have thought seriously about it but at the end of the day my spouse (who is dead set against it) is much more important to me.
I continue to chip away behind the scenes however and have made some major changes over the years.
Still wouldn't it be nice if there were 3 Mr. Sullivan's running this town......now there's a great idea!
So can anonymous please enlighten all of us and explain exactly what RSA Sapia & Childs broke that warrants impeachment? I have tried to keep up on what is on this blog and so far I see a lot of speculation and accusations, sour grapes, but no concrete evidence that a law was intentionally broken. Please enlighten me and maybe I'll contribute to the legal fund to take this on.
PS: If you are talking about Carol Grant's suit, I suggest you read her writ, Sumner's response, and the Judge's ruling. In contrast to what some on this blog have written, there was no law broken; the judge would not have ignored it if there had been (and this after Mrs. Grant had 3 days at the "plate" to swing away in court at great expense to the town).
Anonymous said he/she would like 3 Mr. Sullivans. Just what has he done deserve all the praise the blog heaps on him? Facts please.
Sapia will not be defeated next year unless we can stand behind one person running against him. Phil will call on the elderly to support Sapia, just like he did to support Childs. Therefore, there will be about 1,000 votes for Mr. Sapia. UGH...I hope this doesn't happen, but it could!Then we will have more of the same nonsense for the next 3 years, spinning our wheels, going to court over whatever, and the people not being represented. Only the special groups in town will get they want, we get higher taxes and are left my the wayside, unless we strike out and fall behind one strong leader.
to anon @ 5:33
in short he has done nothing! And the sad fact is that nothing is 100% improvement over what Sapia and Childs have done. He has not gotten us into court. He has not yelled at residents at selectmens meetings, he has not cut residents off, he has tried to stop the other two when they are doing something improper, like the meeting before the election trying to pitch the tower, and van! Oh, and Will someone please tell Sapia that Lt. Baldwin is NOT a dept. head! Just a town employee. Sapia said he should be allowed to pitch the tower because he was a dept. head presenting to the selectmen. He always rationalizes ways around doing what is right.
to anon 3/19 5:33PM
What has Mr. Sullivan done??
In one short year he has brought back honor and integrity to the office of Selectman. He conducts himself like a professional consistently representing the people not himself.
Our selectmen now wear shirts and ties instead of their farming clothes at least giving the appearance of professionalism. If you lead they will follow. Now if the other two could only act professional we would be getting somewhere. So Mr. Sullivan has introduced style and professionalism back into Atkinson government.
He steps up when something is out of place, inappropriate and just plain wrong. Although often outvoted by the other two he still voices the facts for all the residents to hear. So Mr. Sullivan has introduced integrity and honor back into Atkinson government.
Mr. Sullivan requires all the facts from both sides of an issue and makes a determination based on the best interest of the town. So Mr. Sullivan displays an impartiallity that has long been missing in Atkinson government.
The latest debacle of hiring Barbara Snicer to replace Shirley Galvin and Elaine Woodbury is ridiculous.
Mr. Sullivan stood firm that it was wrong based on the FACTS that Mrs. Snicer and Mr. Childs are long long time friends and this would be a definite conflict of interest to hire her. And if hired this would be a continued conflict on a daily basis. Mrs. Snicer has absolutely no experience that can be applied to either position which leaves the town vulnerable and understaffed. But the other two pushed it forward anyway. Still Mr. Sullivan stood up for what was right for the taxpayers and the Town performing the job he was elected to do by the people.
So what has Mr. Sullivan done for the Town......ALOT and he CONTINUES to do for the Town day after day after day.
I can’t bite my tongue any longer. Do any of you remember that both Barbara Stewart and Brian Boyle asked for support in seeking another term in the Selectmen’s report page of the Town report? They were accused of electioneering but the truth of the matter is that they broke no law. Read the relevant RSA’s below:
Section 659:44-a
659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. – No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 273-A:1, IX ""Public employee'' means any person employed by a public employer except:
(a) Persons elected by popular vote
Sapia did not engage in electioneering any more than Stewart or Boyle since non of these actions falls under the definition of electioneering because three of them were elected by popular vote. (There is another definition for behavior at the polls during an election.) The Library had a sign out front asking for support of the Library article, that also is NOT electioneering if it was approved by the Trustees (they are elected). On the other hand, if Consentinio used his police chief's office phone to call people to garner support the van, that would be electioneering since he is a public employee.
Actually in Boyle's case, he never mentioned the election, nor did he sign it, an oversight to be sure, but never the less, the Town hall employees and the eagle-tribune made much hay over the issue, even neglecting to print that the Secretary of State said that was not electioneering.
However, please read the RSA that you posted. Both Consentino and Baldwin ARE public employees, and their using their positions to campaign for thei respective issues on camera at a selectmen's meeting would be "government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering."
Thank you for proving my point.
Seenitdoneit I think you should read the RSA again. The way you are interpreting this (and you are wrong, call the Secretary of State if you wish) would mean that Baldwin could not have even stood up at town meeting and presented on the issue! People like you on this blog are hell bent on crucifying the people you don't like and covering for the one's you support. That was obvious to the voters and that's why they voted the way they did.
Once again, you are wrong. Town meeting floor IS the place to present and advocate for and against issues. Every town resident has that right on town floor. If you dont believe me ask the moderator. He has been doing this quite a while and I am sure he would agree. It is the period between the deliberative session and the election where it is especially wrong to advocate an issue in selectmen's meetings. Secondly, it is ALWAYS impermissible for one to use his position or town resources to advocate for a candidate or issue.
Also as a side note to our previous post;
Your discussion of Mr. Sapia's behavior regarding his giving sworn testimony to Mr. Polito during Mr. Polito's suit against the town; I suggest you read Atkinson's conflict of interest ordinance, which states under prohibited conduct;
No elected or appointed official or employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part from the town treasury shall represent private interests, other than his or her own, in any actions or proceedings against the interest of the town in any litigation to which the town is a party.
This means that it was a violation of said ordinance to voluntarily give sworn testimony/affidavits to the opposing side in a suit against the town, not to mention the legality or lack thereof of this practice. Oh, that passage also has implications for Mr. Polito as the Court determined in dismissing the case that he had no personal interest in pursuing it, therefore as a town official he was probably in violation of said ordinance as well.
but none of this matters because the conflict of interest committee only really enforce the ordinance when it is someone whois out of favor, or someone has gone to court to get them to enforce it.
Seeitdoneit...I'm glad you are not my attorney. Your interpretation of Sapia and the conflict of interest is dead wrong. Look up the word "represent". It is a stretch at best to read that as withholding testimony unless under subpoena. Sapia simply spoke the truth, something in small quantities on this blog. I suggest you put you JD to work and start helping the folks on this blog get their day in court. Put your money where your mouth is!
As for the conflict of interest committe, give me an example of where they made a mistake in a ruling? I think they do an excellent job. In fact, as an attorney, you should have run for a position on the committee.
And I think town officials should leave the lawyering to lawyers, but you ask where the conflict of interest committee has made a mistake, hmm lets see;
1.) They ruled that there was no conflict in Consentino voting on police matters as a selectman, that should have been obvious! And the Court said they were wrong! And the funny thing is Consentino AGREED to that oder to avoid trial! That means he could have done the right thing at any time, but chose not to.
2.) They found no conflict in a selectman/police chief signing a voucher for a $1300 "union benefit" he had never gotten before, and was excluded from in the union contract. This was odd seeing as one year previous they had excoriated Barbara Stewart for signing voucher packets that included paychecks for her Brother-in-law, the road agent.
3.) Funny how they found no conflict the first time Fred voted for his own pay raise, but the second time, after the court orders, they "decided to take a more literal reading of the ordinance" in the words of Chairman Smith.
I would classify those as mistakes, wouldn't you?
Ohhh Publius, please let me take a stab at this one;
To anon who wishes RSA cited that Sapia and Child broke, let me take the second part of your comment first, please;
With regards to Mrs. Grant’s petition for removal, you are once again wrong. You need to remember that she originally filed her petition against ALL THREE SELECTMEN, Consentino, Childs, and Sapia. By the time it came to court Consentino had lost his write-in campaign, and was out of office. Sumner correctly had him dismissed as a defendant. Which was great for him as 80-90% of her case regarded actions which Consentino committed. Once those were off the table, her case against the other two was much weaker. Sitting there as chairman, like a bobble-head, letting your meeting disintegrate into screaming on the part of an egomaniacal police chief is not a crime, morally wrong, and not the conduct of a chairman, but not a crime. Neither is cheerleading and encouraging said chief.
Now lets look at her writ; Did the chief scream at her, pound the table, scream for the cameras to be turned off, and charge across the room to physically confront her, yes, watch the tape of the selectmens meeting 12/27/05. Here is the kicker; at that time he was under THREE separate Court Orders not to be in the room when elderly affairs or police matters or any town employee matters that in any way affected himself were discussed. If Acciard had been vindictive he could have filed another contempt order on the basis of that meeting alone. If you watch the tape of that meeting it is a riot. Grant sits at the table and asks to be allowed to read her statement without interruption, the next 16 minutes are filled with Sapia and Childs interrupting her to tell her to just read it they are not going to interrupt her. Then as soon as she mentions Consentino, he jumps up pounds the desk, screams at the cable people to turn off the cameras, makes a motion to end the meeting, and storms out of the room. When they come back into what everyone characterized as a non-public session, Phil put a tape recorder on the table and taped her against her wishes. Now NH is a “two-party” state, any police chief should know it is illegal to tape someone in a non-public meeting, RSA 91A:3, it is further illegal to tape someone against their expressed wishes. And he then told the Eagle- Tribune all of this the next day, Story ran on 12/29/05. Bringing info. out of a non-public session is again illegal, RSA 91A:3. Calling the police to escort her, her husband and her wheelchair bound son out of a public building was again an abuse of office. Then after all of that Consentino DESTROYED THE TAPE! Imagine a 30 year police chief destroying evidence, especially in a case against himself. (refer to Grant case file letter from Consentino admitting this attached to Sumners answer to Grant’s motion to compel production of tape) The selectmen were served with a subpeona to produce the illegal tape on Jan. 25, 06. They ignored it, and allowed Consentino to destroy evidence.
Another cause of action in her case was the improper purchase of the SUV for the PD. Grant asked the same question the budget committee asked, which hasn’t been answered to this day, “how could it have been bought without the selectmen taking a vote to do it?” Sumner turned this issue into a debate on the selectmen’s authority to move money into line items to cover overexpenditure. An attorney would not have allowed this to happen.
Listening to the tapes from the trial are a riot too. Consentino, the only witness to have a personal attorney there(hmm, maybe he knew he needed it) 31 times asserting his 5th ammendment rights against self incrimination. This works well before a judger, but in a jury trial the jury realizes that you had to commit a crime to incriminate yourself, therefore it is a double-edged sword.
Even the judge in his order referred to Consentino’s action as egregious, but admits that Grant failed to make the connection between his actions and the town’s(or the other two selectmen’s) responsibility to restrain them.
As to RSA’s Their malfeasance is mainly a metter of what is right. You cross the line of what is right, long before you even see the line for what is illegal. Atkinson’s selectmen like to tightrope walk on the line of what is illegal.
But here goes;
Bringing info. out of non-public session, RSA 91A:3
Going into Non-public session for a reason other than enumerated in the RSA, RSA91A:3
Going into Non-public session without a motion in public sesison to do so, RSA 91A:3
Revealing info in public meetings which you reasonably should know is non-public, RSA 91A:3
Failing to rpovide minutes of meetings, RSA 91A:4
Accusing someone of committing a crime, in a live meeting which is not a crime, RSA 643:1
plotting on camera how to “get around” a Court Order. RSA 643:1,
Making false statements rearding court cases out of open court, RSA 495:2, 641:1,2,3,4,5,7
Recording someone against their wishes in non-public meeting, RSA 570A:2,6,9; RSA 91A:3
Physically threatening someone in a legalized meeting, 642:1
These should get the debate started.
You know, I cold be wrong here, but your post reminds me of Atkinson’s town moderator, no town official gives more erroneous legal advise than he.
have a nice day.
Where is the Library Going??
I wonder if any one noticed how easily Mr. Sapia managed to take hold of the progress of the trustees. Seems he has it all figured out as to who is going to be in charge. From the look on the faces of the group it seemed to be a surprise to them also. They had some questions and I'm sure and hope there will be a lot more.
Seeitdoneit...I am beginning to wonder whether you are really a lawyer or Publius himself (and we all know who he is). :-)
If you were a lawyer, you would deal in facts. You state a bunch of anecdotal stuff from meetings, leave out what Carol Grant did (and she was nasty to a lot of innocent people), and then you list a bunch of RSAs. How about connecting the dots like a prosecuting attorney would by demonstrating the specific action of the accused rises to the level of a violation of a specific law?
You have no argument from me that Consentino was unprofessional and downright rude at times. That is an issue of decorum and leadership style, not one of statutory obligations. Like others on this blog, you pick and choose your facts and anecdotes to support your point-of-view. Polito lost his case, Grant lost hers. Was Polito’s judge right and Grant’s judge wrong? Seems like that is your point-of-view.
One more thing to test your worthiness as an attorney. Consider the following. The Boyle application before the planning board last year was an amendment to an already approved plan. It was limited to the specific request to trade an emergency access lane for fire hydrants. Harold Morse did not recuse himself even though he worked for Peter Lewis and was his son-in-law. The water for the hydrants comes from Lewis’s water company, Boyle’s development gets its water from Lewis’s water company, Lewis had deeded rights to all water in the development (and the wells located there), and finally, Lewis had a recorded mortgage on each piece of property in that development. Next we have Ted Stewart (fireman) and Chuck Early (fire inspector and fireman). Both Early and Stewart work for the fire chief (yes they get paid) and Early inspects the houses in the development. Their boss (Mike Murphy) worked out the trade with Boyle and supported it to the Planning Board.
Now please answer the following: Did Morse, Early, and Stewart violate the Atkinson Conflict of Interest Ordinance by voting on this site plan amendment to trade hydrants for an emergency access lane? Did Early Stewart, and Mores violate RSA 673:14?
I await your learned opinion.
How soon the "moon bats" forget where this town came from. If you think wearing a suit coat and tie makes you more credible or a better person you should go back to Massachusetts.
This town was a farming community way before it became a roost for "moon bats"! My family and most of my friends are or were farmers. Most if not all were upstanding citizens of their communities and taught their children to never judge a book by it's covers. I know way to many people that dress in flannel shirts and coveralls that would be better politicians than most that are in an expensive suit.
annonymous said: "How soon the "moon bats" forget where this town came from." I don't know what a moon bat is but I couldn't agree more. One of the things I like most about Atkinson is that we don't all have to conform to a single mindset and thank God not a single dress code! This town is a great place to live because people are not generally judged by what they wear. If they were, I'd have been run out of town on a rail!
to anon 3/20/07 10:55AM
The suit, the coat, and the tie do not make anyone a better person. But, the flannel shirts aren't the problem it's what has been in them the past 20 years.
Please have one of your relatives or friends in those flannel shirts step forward and participate in running the town. We surely could use some more decency and better politicians.
Am sorry that you feel Mr. Sullivan's appearance projects the wrong image......but you have to admit in spite of the shirt and tie he fills his shoes quite ethically.
And that is what it is all about. Ethics and honor which has been sorely missing in Atkinson.
I know a "flannel shirt" person who was appointed to the ZBA, MUCH to the dismay of the suited chairman. I've heard he did a good job. Alas, the chairman managed to make certain he wasn't reappointed. Same flannel guy served on the Budget Committee, where he was really quite good. The suit-people made sure he wasn't re-elected.
In answer to what has Selectman Sullivan done? FACTS
He managed to negotiate a better contract for the town saving the taxpayers big bucks with Waste Management. Johnny come lately Jack and Fred jumped on the band wagon and single handedly took credit.
He also pursued the ambulance contract and helped to negotiate several issues (liability and indemnity) for the benefit of the town. Johnny come latelys can't take credit because they don't know squat about the EMT world.
When it came time to put the town engineer out to bid it was Selectman Sullivan who pushed the other two to revisit the bids submitted. And surprise surprise a candidate was then chosen from those that had been glanced over.
Selectman Sullivan continues to work closely with the residents on the lake so that those very residents can voice their issues over their assessments and not be ignored.
Selectman Sullivan is consistent in his endeavor to have the Board act as a GROUP by eliminating back room deals and daytime meetings between only two members of the Board.
But it's not all about Selectman Sullivan. It's about everyone participating in the opportunity to do things according to 91:A (the right to know) and opening up our government so that all residents are aware of what is going on.
Anonymous said: "Am sorry that you feel Mr. Sullivan's appearance projects the wrong image......but you have to admit in spite of the shirt and tie he fills his shoes quite ethically."
I have no basis to concur with that opinion. Let's wait to see how he does this year. Since he is acting as real estate agent representing Boyle's development that abuts the proposed cell tower site, I would expect him to recuse himself of ALL maters dealing with cell towers, including Hogg Hill. I would also expect him to recuse himself from appointing building inspectors, planning board members, and board of adjustment members. Oh, and since he thinks that being the friend of someone is a conflict (as he said to Fred about Snicer), I expect to see him recuse himself from anything to do with the Fire Department where he has many friends. Oh, and isn't Teddy also his friend? I see the two of them together quite often; is he going to recuse himself from all matters regarding the road agent?
Signed….”Waiting and Watching”
Seenitdoneit said: "Another cause of action in her case was the improper purchase of the SUV for the PD. Grant asked the same question the budget committee asked, which hasn’t been answered to this day, “how could it have been bought without the selectmen taking a vote to do it?” Sumner turned this issue into a debate on the selectmen’s authority to move money into line items to cover overexpenditure. An attorney would not have allowed this to happen."
Please show me the RSA that says there has to be an official vote? Sapia and Childs signed the purchase order for the vehicle so obviously the chief did NOT do this without their approval. If Carol needed an attorney, why didn't you help her?
Although this is becoming tedious, I will try, once again, to go though your points in order;
1.) You must be clairvoyant, because I can only narrow Publius identity to three or four people, and even that is hypothesis at best, nothing I could walk into a courtroom with.
2.)I HAVE dealt in facts. I have stated meetings in which the incidents described occurred, and the case files in which the documents described can be viewed by anyone willing to drive to Brentwood.
3.) Connecting Dots;
12/27/05 Consentino evidently violated three existing Court Orders that precluded him from being in the room when elderly affairs, police, or any town employee matter which in any way affect him were being discussed. Grant was there to discuss elderly affairs, then file a complaint regarding Consentino's conduct. Both issues which he was barred from attending. If Acciard were more venal he could have filed a Contempt motion based upon that meeting, and had Consentino cited for the 2nd time.
Taping Grant against her wishes is a violation of numerous laws as stated above, and should be known as such by a 30 year police chief.
Destroying evidence is a violation of numerous laws, and should be known to be so by a 30 year police chief.
Ignoring a subpeona is a violation of law, and grounds for contempt of court.
At the 8/8/05 meeting Childs talked about Grants Driving record. Information not in the public domain, not to be made public under NH privacy laws, and not the business of the selectmen or the town of Atkinson, violation of three different RSA's listed above.
Purchasing a $30,000 SUV 8 days after town meeting, without the selectmen voting to do so is a violation of RSA 41:8 "a majority of selectmen must be competent at all times" This has been taken to mean in numerous Supreme Court Cases that it takes a majority vote to act.
Giving an interview to the Eagle-Tribune Dec. 28, 2005, to be printed 12/29/05, in which you reveal the goings on in a non-public session is a violation of RSA 91A:3, A:4
Need I go on or do you get the idea.
4.) Again you missed my point, Polito's Judge was correct, as was Grant's judge, Grant's case was a victim of a weak pleading and weak representation unschooled in the law. As I stated had she gotten an attorney, she would have had a much stronger pleading, and a much stronger case. Had she had an attorney representing her Sumner would not have been able to get the events of the 27th sealed as it was not legally an executive session even though the selectmen claim it was. Consentino would then have had to answer question about that night as well, although in light of the fact that his testimony consisted of "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me" I do not know how much info this would have gleaned. She should also have tried not for a judicial decision but for a civil trial by jury, in which invoking your 5th ammendment rights 31 times would not have had the same effect. As for your obsession with the Hydrant/pathway issue(hmm, a certain town official was obsessed with this issue as well) If I were Morse, or he were my client I would have recommended recusal. As for Early, Stewart, perhaps you can tell me how they would have gained "personally" from either outcome. The town would have benefited form a live hydrant as opposed to a dubious pathway through the woods, but how would those two town employees have benefited? As far as I can see neither outcome affects their jobs, or pay, and therefore they have no personal interest and would not have to recuse themselves.
5.) As for your assertion that I should run for conflict of interest committee, while I would undoubtedly find it interesting, I only grew up in Atkinson, and find it's officials conduct laughable. We don't have this kind of entertainment where I live.
to Anon @ 3:14
Actually if you watch the tape of the Budget Committee public hearing on May 3, 2005, you will see Selectman Childs state, speaking of the Chief, " Did we know he was going to buy it, NO, he just went out and bought it. If you guys didn't want him to get it , you shouldn't have put the money into his budget." And as for the RSA it is 41:8, which states that a Majority of the selectmen must be competent at all times. This has been taken, by the NH Supreme Court, to mean that a majority vote is required to act.
For those of us who enjoy our flannel shirts, what's a moon bat?
Publius: Article Submission
Electioneering: Attention to all Town Employees who do not wish to be guilty of a misdemeanor.
When I saw someone post the information about electioneering, I could not believe what I read. So I looked it up for myself on the internet and found it at:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-44-a.htm
Here is the text from the NH RSA:
TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 659
ELECTION PROCEDURE
Prohibited Acts
Section 659:44-a
"659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. – No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 2003, 172:2, eff. June 18, 2003."
So if ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE used town owned property to make telephone calls, emails, faxes to "get out the vote" or even use town property to say, give numerous voters rides in town vehicles to the polls.....wouldn't that be Electioneering?
I was told by several witnesses standing at the Atkinson community Center on election day that they saw elderly residents given a significant number of rides from the Atkinson PD. We are talking about quite a few more than 5 or 10. Uhm, isn't this influencing the town vote? So under the RSA, wouldn't EVERY Police Officer and Community Officer that participated in giving rides to the polls fall under this statute? Or every Public Employee that used town phones to make phone calls to "get out the vote"? Or Every Public Employee that put up political signs on town time using a town vehicle?
What about using other town resources such as the town owned video equipment that communicates messages across our town cable channel? It only takes a few statements during a Selectman's meeting.
Remember, the RSA states "....to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office".
In my opinion, our Atkinson PD is a political organization that is funded by the taxpayers. Taxpayer resources are used every year to influence the vote through the Dept. of Elderly Services.
For those specific users of Elderly Services who abuse this service and are now obligated for your vote, shame on you for being complicit in this activity.
I also want to say to Atkinson Residents: Shame on us for not stepping up and volunteering to help our elderly friends and neighbors with rides and appointments. If a small percentage of the town volunteered and each volunteer gave one elderly person one ride per week (or picked up groceries or prescriptions - heck, I live at Shaws and CVS), the need for the Dept. of Elderly Services would cease to exist.
Instead, we pay increased taxes to fund a political organization that is using town owned property and resources to influence the vote on issues and elections - using my tax dollars to get votes for issues I do not support, or get votes for people I do not support, or to get votes against people I do support (some very qualified people were voted out of office in the last election).
If this is not electioneering, I do not know what is.
Seenitdoneit said: "The town would have benefited form a live hydrant as opposed to a dubious pathway through the woods, but how would those two town employees have benefited? As far as I can see neither outcome affects their jobs, or pay, and therefore they have no personal interest and would not have to recuse themselves."
OK, got it. In your world, the ends justify the means. What possible personal gain has Consentino achieved in all these things you allege he did wrong? I guess that we should just forgive Consentino because he takes care of the elderly, no matter how he does it. Right????
Annonymous said: "I know a "flannel shirt" person who was appointed to the ZBA, MUCH to the dismay of the suited chairman. I've heard he did a good job. Alas, the chairman managed to make certain he wasn't reappointed."
Hmmm...let me think...You must be talking about Peter Lewis. Brian Boyle was the Selectman behind his appointment...oh...didn't Peter provide Boyle with much needed water for his development?
Peter is a good guy, flannel shirt?...maybe in color only, the guy is a multi-millionaire! Oh, and as in the movie "Its a Wonderful Life", do you want Atkinson to be Pottervile (or Lewisville)? I think it is great that Peter owns the town, more power to him (I'm a capitalist), but I sure don't want him or his minions running the town government. Do you?
PS: I never saw Polito wear a suit, have you? Maybe that's why he is "no Jack Herilhy" :-)
Seenidoneit said: "As for your assertion that I should run for conflict of interest committee, while I would undoubtedly find it interesting, I only grew up in Atkinson, and find it's officials conduct laughable. We don't have this kind of entertainment where I live."
OK, you just summarized what is wrong with this town right now. Lots of critics but few people willing to roll up their sleeves and serve. As a life long resident and former public official, all I can say is shame on you!
Seenitdoneit said: "Taping Grant against her wishes is a violation of numerous laws as stated above, and should be known as such by a 30 year police chief.
Destroying evidence is a violation of numerous laws, and should be known to be so by a 30 year police chief."
So just how do you know he taped it? Sounds like more speculation. If he did, the judge would have nailed him to the cross! Facts, not fiction please!!!!
to anonymous @ 8:58
Come on Frank, you know that Boyle paid what? a couple of hundred thousand to bring the water line to his project so that he could have hydrants, so that he would not have to sprinkler the houses. You make it sound like Lewis just did it for him free of charge. What a crock!
Still whining about the "no Jack Herlihy" comment? Get over it, tell me are Consentino's minions running the town doing it any good at all? Maybe Lewis minions would be better, who knows? sure couldn't be worse. And by the way, Frank, what has Peter Lewis done to the town that has been so bad? Or is he bad by nature just because he is a "multi-millionaire"?
to anon @ 9:01
You must read the posts you place. I said I dont currently live in town therefore my "rolling up my sleeves and helping" isn't going to work now is it? or are you going to change the rules so that out of towners may be elected?
This is an intellectual battle with an unarmed man
to anon @ 9:04
Again you are not reading the posts. Consentino admitted it to the Eagle-Tribune the next day. the story ran on 12/29/05. FACT!
He also admitted it in a letter, on Police Dept. stationary, signed Chief Phil V. Consentino, which is in the case file at Brentwood, and was attached by Sumner to his answer to Grant's motion to compel production of the tape. The letter stated that he could not produce it because he had "accidently recorded over it" the letter is dated March 29, 2006. more than two full months AFTER the subpeona to produce it. FACT!
If you are going to debate please read the post you are debating, and stop forcing me to re- state the same things. If you don't believe it check it out for yourself. I have told you where to find it.
To Anon @ 8:46
Nope wrong again! you asked me did I think Early and Stewart should have recused themselves? You asked me for my interpretation of the law regarding that issue. I am telling you that if they do not benefit personally, then there is no need to recuse. If they were the fire chief, then perhaps they might have to step aside, but again how are their jobs or pay affected by either a hydrant or a pathway? If you can show how one benefits them more than the other, and benefits them to a greater degree than the populace at large then they would have to step aside.
To anon @ 9:04
You also forgot that the judge could not do anything to Consentino as you assert because Consentino was no longer a defendant! He was merely a witness.
Seenitdoneit...I aksed you if Early, Morse and Stewart should recuse. You are dead wrong on Early & Morse because if you knew your case law (I guess you really aren't a lawyer) you would know that they should have recused themselves.
And, you conveniently avoided answering on Morse. If you were a lawyer, you would also know that even if the recusal would not have affected the final vote outcome, case law says the whole vote is overtruned and must be re-heard from scratch.
Like I said before, seems like you and the others want to crucify Consentino but turn a blind eye to the other problems in this town.
to anon @ 8:10
It seems you are hell-bent on either not understanding what I have said or intentionally mis-construing it.
I have stated three times in our discourse that Morse should have recused himself.
As to Early and Stewart, I have stated three times that in order to prove conflict, you must prove that the outcome of the decision will somehow affect "them personally" and to "greater affect than the general population". I think that is clear.
You keep asking for specifics, and I have given them, you asked a question and I have answered. You state that I must not kow my case law, without giving a case citation. If you wish to continue this debate further I suggest you furnish a case citation for established precedent which refute my earlier assessment, or failing to do so, cede your point.
I am sorry to say that I voted for Jack. I used to see and talk to him on field trips that our kids went on from the Academy, and I believed his talk of change, and giving the town back to the people. I believed him when he said he just wanted to end the bickering and help the town to move forward.
I was wrong! So Wrong! I should have voted for Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle if you read this, I am sorry, and if you run again you will have my vote.
I guess my friend the mistaken debater has given up trying to prove his inane points. No case citations? not even one? I am disappointed, I was enjoying the debate.
Well there is a way for the majority of voters to win in next years selectmens race...there needs to be a unification of the populus and stand behind one person. we need to set up some sort of commitiee. Also a donation account to fund for advertising. We can do it next year even with the cheifs support on the "dark side". do you all follow? It is very clear to me what the majority of voters need to do...We need to stand together.
Post a Comment