So selectman Sapia feels that the selectmen could actually appoint the tower committee members as they appoint the highway safety committee members anyway. So what if town council actually told you to just follow the wording of the warrant article, and allow those committees to choose their own representatives, as stated in the warrant article. While not a life threatening issue, it is symptomatic of the general disdain for the will of the voters that this board of selectmen has. This is similar to the vietnam honor roll panels where the majority of voters said place them in front of the town hall, but outside of the flagpoles. The selectmen chose not to do this after consulting with town council who told them that there was no ambiguity in the two warrant articles, and to simply follow the wording of both. The selectmen, most notably Consentino and Childs did not want to do that, and therefore they STILL haven't been placed. The expressed will of the people be damned!
This year, the expressed will of the voters was to form a committee to investigate the police communications problem, and how best to solve it, and to provide the voters with TWO options. The warrant article spells out very specifically how the committee is to be staffed. Why is selectman Sapia evidently determined to have this committee stacked with people whose have already decided that we need a tower in the center of town? First it was to expand the article ordered committee by adding the former ad hoc members to this committee. Then it is putting as many former ad hoc members as possible to represent the various boards in town. This blogs question would be why are the selectmen, most notably Sapia, afraid to let the process go forward without influence from people whose minds are already made up? Is he afraid that an impartial investigation may not find that wee need a tower at all, let alone in the center of town?
The meeting progressed into a discussion of the relative costs of appointing an assistant road agent, with Fred going so far as to dig up minutes from 1992, where he claims that the selectmen failed to appoint an assistant road agent, as justification for not doing it now. Funny, how only boards peopled by selectmen with personal axes to grind with Teddy fail to appoint this position. Jack went on to state that this position would cost the town $4,000/yr. This from the very same man who was insistent upon hiring his long time buddy for upwards of $5,000 to act as consultant on the library project, even when he has no say over that project!
This blog thinks that if the selectmen are serious about being fiscally responsible, they should not hire a replacement for Fred's old position of town maintenance manager. This $26,000/yr. position has, for the last several years consisted mainly of Fred making phone calls to get the roofer, the painters, the plumbers, the electricians in to do work. It appears that Fred has done very little actual maintenance work himself. If a major percentage of the jobs work consists of making phone calls then Russ can do it. That would save the town $26,000/yr. plus insurance!
And by the way, what is going on with that reprimand that Jack was so adamant about giving Teddy for, get this..... insubordination! Jack; grow up! you are not Teddy's boss in that manner. he is also an elected official! If he fails to perform his work product in an acceptable fashion then write him up, but if he tells you to piss off! then suck it up and be a man and walk away! You probably earned it!
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. "
7 comments:
The blog failed to mention - or omitted - the fact that the Selectmen are enthusiastic about having a chipper down at the dump, but never mentioned how much money the town would have to pay a person to man the machine. That employee would in IN ADDITION to the person who's there to ensure all rules and regulations are adhered to. I've heard rumors those chipper operators receive $20 per hour. 8 hours per month times 12 is 96 times $20 in a lot of money (that isn't in the budget).
Actually that fact was pointed out in a comment by former budget committee chair Acciard under the "selectmen infighting" article. Along with other associated costs. But thank you for keeping the oversight going.
Just had a thought. The people are the Selectmen's bosses. Shouldn't we be writing them up, and including those letters in their files?
In the words of selectman Sapia...
If I talked to my boss the way he talks to his(the people) I would have been fired by now.
Just imagine for a moment if your boss heard you swear at a coworker! Or walk into a female colleague's office and scream at her about how she should do HER work in HER office! or if you called the police to escort your boss from company property because you didn't want him there.
Selectman Sapia has done all of those things and more!
If it wouldn't work for you at your job, why should he get away with it?
A thought on the cell tower. I hear Lt. Baldwin will be a member representing the police (but the Chief will be there!). Mr. Murad, a member of last year's committee is a member. Mr. Sapia will sit on that committee. And Mr. Thompson, close personal friend of Mr. Polito and Mr. Sapia, will represent the Budget Committee. That's four known "tower" people.
Is this a railroad job or what?
A couple of comments on the Road Agent. Did I hear Fred say, last Monday, that he went back to the 1992 minutes and found where the Selectmen did not see the need for an Assistant? How many miles of road have been added to the Road Agent's responsibilities in the past FOURTEEN years?
Second one: It's my understanding that the Road Agent walked out of an Executive Session because the Selectmen changed from a discussion of personnel to a discussion of policy. Policy is NOT one of those issues permitted in Executive Session (RSA 91-A).
Therefore, Ted's letter of reprimand must have been issued because he was determined to obey the law and the Selectmen were not (as usual).
Post a Comment