What a meeting tonight! Once again the general selectmen disrespect for resident who are asking them to do things they do not wish to do was evident. Typical Selectmen screaming, raving and infantile rants were the order of the evening.
First planning board members Mike Fletcher and Teddy Stewart told selectmen Sapia and Childs that they made a "mistake" by not re-appointing long serving planning board member Chuck Early at last weeks meeting. Many in town believe that the snub to Mr. Early was retribution for his vocal opposition to selectmen Sapia in particular, and to a lesser extent Childs, in the battle over the fire hydrant two years ago. It has been reported that Mr. Sapia was overheard to comment that this would end the back room deals on the planning board. Funny that comment coming from the man that made a back room deal to offer sworn testimony against the very town he was sworn to serve.
This progressed on to two citizens petitions directing the selectmen to call for a special town meeting to adopt our own version of the Center Barnstead water restriction as a town ordinance. Secondly, another citizens petition for a special town meeting to direct the selectmen to finally place the Vietnam Honor Roll panels, as directed by the 2005 town meeting vote. Selectman Childs greeted the presentation of these two initiatives with a first class temper tantrum, refusing to accept the petitions, even going so far as to accuse Mrs. Grant of passing a meeting attendance sheet off as a petition, which was ridiculuous on the face of it. Mr. Sapia responded by complaining that there would need to be TWO town meetings one for each article, and that they would cost $5000 apiece. This sentiment was echoed by Town Moderator Frank Polito. This blog would like to ask WHY there has to be two separate town meetings. Surely both questions will fit on the same ballot?
Selectmen Sullivan and Sapia prevailed in convincing Childs that the board had no choice but to accept the petitions and call for the special town meeting. Our Town Administrator claimed to have a letter from NHMA ( NH Municipal Assoc.) that stated that there would have to be two separate town meetings, but we will wait to see the actual letter. We remember numerous other letter espousing legal opinions that did not turn out as claimed. Selectman Sapia (intentionally?) misinformed the audience by stating that he didn't know if they could deal with the Vietnam Memorial issue because the Judge had issued an Order on that. Well that is not true, the two sides stipulated, the Judge approved the stipulation, later both sides mutually withdrew the stipulation to change it, and that second stipulation was refused by 97% of the petitioners. The Judge NEVER issued any order in this matter!
As for Moderator Polito's legal opinion and selectman Sapia's echo that the town will need to hold TWO town meetings to satisfy both articles, here is the law;
RSA 39:3
39:3 Articles. – Upon the written application of 25 or more registered voters or 2 percent of the registered voters in town, whichever is less, although in no event shall fewer than 10 registered voters be sufficient, presented to the selectmen or one of them not later than the fifth Tuesday before the day prescribed for an annual meeting, the selectmen shall insert in their warrant for such meeting the petitioned article with only such minor textual changes as may be required. For the purposes of this section, the number of registered voters in a town shall be the number of voters registered prior to the last state general election. The right to have an article inserted in the warrant conferred by this section shall not be invalidated by the provisions of RSA 32. In towns with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants upon the written application of 50 or more voters or 1/4 of the voters in town, whichever is fewer, and in towns with 10,000 or more inhabitants upon the written application of 5 percent of the registered voters in the town, so presented not less than 60 days before the next annual meeting, the selectmen shall warn a special meeting to act upon any question specified in such application.
Notice that there is nothing in the law requiring one meeting per article, this amounts to another scare tactic on the part of the selectmen trying to inflate the actual cost of these meetings.
The ironic facet of tonights spectacle is the fact that if the selectmen would do their jobs, without prejudice, they would not have residents ordering them to do what they should have done in the first place.
If the selectmen had simply put the honor roll panels where the voters said to, the selectmen would not be in receit of a request for secial town meeting right now, and further, if the selectmen had intervened on behalf of the town, to ensure that the town's water is protected they would not be in receipt of a petition for special town meeting today. In other words they made their beds, now they have to lie in them.
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. "
15 comments:
Riddle me this…..
We, Atkinson, has a BoS elected and charged with administering the prudential affairs of the town. We can argue the limitations of this administrative authority later. We can not argue that the BoS is a board and must or can take actions ONLY as a BOARD.
We told them to hire a CLERK and call him a Town Administrator to help with the day to day paper shuffle, research money saving programs and bring the information to the BoS and town for our decisions and other NON OFFICIAL, NON DECISIONAL activities to HELP Atkinson.
We know the BoS, BY LAW, can not abrogate its authority.
This CLERK (Atkinson town administrator) has no lawful authority of his own in Atkinson.
The Riddle…
Why does it appear that the prudential affairs of Atkinson being continually conducted by a CLERK (Atkinson TA) making “back room” deals and decisions on behalf of Atkinsonians with NO public oversight?
I watched part of last night's meeting, and I, too, question the two meetings. At our annual meetings, we have zoning articles and non-zoning articles. Zoning articles have been discussed at Planning Board Public Hearings and other articles have been discussed either at the Budget Committee's Public Hearing or in the Selectmen's Office under "Non-Money Articles". (At least the Selectmen always have held such public hearings.) All articles, though, have appeared on one ballot. There have been Deliberatives where planning articles are discussed as well as all other.
I don't see why there can't be two public hearings - one planning, one Selectmen - resulting in one Deliberative and one ballot, thus cutting the reported $10,000 cost almost in half.
I'm looking for some explanation from some town official who knows what he's talking about. (Frank? Where are you?)
There is nothing in the law that mandates one meeting per issue. I would be very surprised if there actually is a letter from NHMA OR Sumner Kalman stating that.
The water issue is not a zoning issue. In fact, the Barnstead ordinance was very carefully crafted to avoid inclusion in the zoning process. It is a policy ordinance governing, industry's right to extract a resource from the town and transport it elsewhere. It does not distinguish between areas within the town nor does it restrict usage, theefore it is neither a planning or zoning issue.
As for the Vietnam memorial issue, the article is correct, there has been no Order of the Court issued, the original court approved stipulation was negated by mutual consent from what I understand, and the petitioners did not sign the revised stipulation, therefore the matter is at an impass. But none of that matters, because by putting it before the voters it becomes a completely new issue. Similar to the Library, the fact that it has been voted down in the past does not nullify the favorable vote it received this year.
And in answer to the last comment, a Town Administrator has no statutory authority like a Town Manager would. A Town Administrator is little more than a clery or secretary until the board of selectmen vote to give him specific authority.
Publius, you forget to mention that if the selectmen would do their jobs without injecting their own personal feelings and agendas into the mix, they would have saved the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees over the last four years, and the upcoming years, with Sumner's retainer which was TRIPLED two years ago because, in Jack's words, their were so many lawsuits, over 10 of them on his desk at that time.
Hey seeitdoneit:
Any pertinent RSAs?
The only RSA that covers this is 39:3 which is quoted in the article. But you should be aware that NH is a common law state. That means that the bulk of the relevant law can be found in case law rather than statute.
Publius, I am surprised that you forgot to mention that hypocrit Sapia criticized Mrs. Grant for bringing in the water petition without being on the agenda, yet he allow Mr. and Mrs. Morelli to make a presentation, Adele Dillon to bring in a petition, Frank Polito to speak, Teddy Stewart to speak, Mike Fletcher to speak, all without being on the agenda! He had no criticism for them, perhaps because they didnt try to get him kicked out of office?
If you can not act in the best interest of the town irregardless of your personal feelings, you shouldn't be a town official!
Why was Jack so critical of Carol Grant for not being on the agenda, when he was gracious to Adele for not being on agenda.
This is Mr. Consistency in action
I want to buy 2000 acres in Atkinson to build an off road adventure park. Who do I have to bribe on the planning board and BoS?
Ha ha. Actually, it is on my "If I Win The Lottery" list.
Sorry....I think I need to stand up for Jack this time. The only thing he said to Carol who is not affiliated with the town, was "Why weren't you on the agenda?" Carol took it from there. Mr. Fletcher is a member of the Planning Board. Mr. Stewart, the Road Agent; Mr. and Mrs. Morelli speaking to a cemetery issue (they are both employees) and Adele is both a camera person and a member of the Historical Society.
Besides that....they already knew the petitions were coming in; hence Russ's letter from NHMA (?) regarding the submission of two petitons and reportedly stating that two meetings would be required. Like one of my predecessors on the blog, I'd like to see that letter, because I don't beliee it.
It was also Jack to tried - very hard - to keep Fred and Carol both from exploding. Their behavior was totally wrong...both of them.
I know Carol, and I respect her, but there are times when she doesn't know when to shut up.
Anon 3:09
You are correct about Jacks conduct toward endin the situation, however he dd return to the issue of Carol Grant being on the agenda, whle Adele was there for the very same purpose and there was no question at all. And at the end of the meeting again Fred stated that he was not happy, didn't believe it to be a real petition, just an attendance list, and all but accuse Mrs. Grant of fraud by obtaining signatures fraudulently by claimiing it was only an attendance list.
I would have been angry too. He even admtted he didnt want to accept it because she brought it in.
Ths is not how a selectman acts.
To Anonymous 3:09 p.m.
You must be new in town to not know that it has FOREVER been an Atkinson tradition
for the end of selectmen’s meetings to be reserved for resident walk-ins to speak, react
or present something to the Board. It has always been referred to as the “Questions
and Comments From the Audience” portion of the meeting. No resident needs to
be on the agenda to use the part of the meeting that has always belonged to residents.
The first portion of selectmen’s meetings is for department heads, town officials and
“Official” business. The very last portion belongs to the people who don’t need
permission from the selectmen to exercise their right as citizens to speak to their
elected officials on ANY topic they wish, even if it’s only to react to something said
earlier during the meeting.
These selectmen seem to have forgotten that the town belongs to the people and town
government is supposed to be responsive to those people.
Mrs. Grant did nothing wrong and said nothing wrong. Her manner was not confrontational.
She was courteous, but didn’t get courtesy in return. In fact, you could tell by her
face that she was totally taken by surprise and dis-believing when she was attacked by Childs
and inexcusably accused of trying to submit a fraudulent petition. Mr. Sapia was wrong in
not immediately correcting Childs and for allowing Childs to impugn Mrs. Grant’s honesty
nd integrity. Just how much abuse is this board going to subject Mrs. Grant to? When
will they stop? All they had to do was to phone any signer on the petition who would
then have immediately verified that it was a legitimate petition. Childs and Sapia then
refused to accept the citizens’ petition – to obey the law which gives citizens the right to
petition for a special town meeting. It took Selectmen Sullivan to make them obey the
law and accept the petition. We’re lucky to have in Mr. Sullivan, one selectmen who
respects and obeys the law.
Mr. Sapia then criticized Mrs. Grant for using the resident’s portion of the meeting which
you don’t have to be on the agenda for. Mrs. Grant is not a town official and so was
properly using the portion of the meeting reserved for residents. Mrs. Grant had
begun her presentation by explaining that she had been asked at the last minute to present
the petition on behalf of a group of resident, well after the Thursday deadline to be put
on the agenda. Mr. Sapia then admitted that Mrs. Grant had called the selectmen’s office
earlier that day to let them know that she would be coming in during the resident’s portion
of the meeting. Mrs. Grant did not have to extend them that courtesy, but she did. In
return for her courtesy to them, she received abuse from Childs and Sapia. It is
significant that Sapia did not point out that all of the other 6 residents who spoke during the
resident’s portion were also not on the agenda and that none of the other six had shown
them the courtesy he admitted that Mrs. Grant did in phoning ahead that she would be coming in.
What happened to Mrs. Grant is the reason that residents refused to come to selectmen’s meetings.
We see Mrs. Grant regularly rudely and abusively treated just for being a town citizen. The
Board owes her a public apology.
I read in today’s (Thursday) Tribune that Selectman Childs said that “he was approached by several residents who claimed they were fooled into signing the petition when they thought they were signing an attendance sheet at the April meeting.” To that I say “horse road apples!”
Considering that the April meeting was well over a month and a half ago and the petition wasn’t even circulated until last week, there is no way that any resident could or would say that six weeks ago, he was fooled into signing a “petition” that didn’t even exist until a week ago. That false
statement of Childs was so incredibly easy to expose!
I phoned Tribune Reporter Eric Parry and told him how easily he could have exposed Childs false statement by simply insisting that Childs provide him the name of just one of these secret “un-named” non-existent petition signers who Childs claims called him with a claim that they were “fooled” into signing an attendance list which was secretly a petition. I told Parry
that if he called every single signer of the petition that they would all verify that
1. there was NO petition a month ago,
2. that if they attended the meeting a month ago, any attendance list they signed at the meeting was clearly marked “Attendance List,”
3. rhat there was no way anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence could not tell the difference between a petition and a list marked “Attendance List”
4. that many of the petition signers weren’t even at the meeting to have been present to sign an attendance list, and
5. the petition wasn’t even circulated until this past week with the signers not even seeing and signing the petition until this past week.
6. and finally, that not only did none of the petitioners sign any petition at the water meeting 6 weeks ago, but instead, this past week, the petition that they
signed was either bought to their homes by one of 6 petition circulators or else was circulated at a Ti Chi (sp) class at the Community Center.
Every single petition signer would have exposed the lie of Child’s claim that some of the petition signers claimed that they were fooled.
Shame on Mr. Childs for his shameful attempt to discredit a citizens petition circulated and signed by honest, concerned citizens who care about protecting
Atkinson’s water resources.
Thank you Mrs. Grant for clearing up the question in my mind, was the petition circulated at that meeting a month ago?
Mr. Childs, I know you said on tv that you owed Mrs. Grant nothing, and wold never apologize to her, but you were wrong!
You owe her a public apology, and the town as well for your disgraceful behavior. When I was called and asked to vote for you, I had no idea you would behave so badly to any resident.
Mrs. Grant was right at that meeting, You should be ashamed!
here is another question for our selectmen,
Supposedly, according to the chief the "surveillance vehicle" which is really an elderly affairs vehicle, was totalled, and need to be replaced, yet it is on Meditation drive doing speed checks, why does it need to be replaced? Ad even if it were totalled we have 9 other police vehicles, why do we need ten? And why does chief need to withdrw money form donations to cover it?
Post a Comment