So we see from Mr. Springer's latest posts that the selectmen refused certified service of his offer. That is convenient, this way they can sell it for a dollar on Friday, while claiming they never had another offer. What we wish to know is where are the minutes of this thursday and saturday conference call meetings? Where did the selectmen make the decision to refuse the offer? Who made that decision, as ONE selectman has no authority to make a decision binding the town to an action, it takes a quorum? Where are the minutes of these meetings? Why were they held without posting? Why were they held out of the public eye?
And here is the biggie.... If the selectmen's course of action was so right, then why did a simple question from an out of town resident, force them to change their course of action?
If donating the vehicle to this family is a good thing, and I believe it is, then why couldn't it suffer scrutiny? Why did the selectmen have to react as they always do when questioned, and trash the personal reputation of the questioner? Mr. Springer, you have just gotten a small taste of what we deal with on a day to day basis. The fact is that the chief was apple polishing when he inflated the value of the van to the eagle tribune. That started people asking questions like "if it is worth $3-5,000 why are we giving it away? If it is so decrepit, why will this family be able to use it? The fact is that once questioned about it, the chief got his dander up... AGAIN.... and had to respond by shooting the messenger. The selectmen, as usual, as the puppets they are, jumped on board.
Selectmen, you have been publicly offerred $750 for the van, with the same benefit to the family receiving it, accept the money, or you will be, once again, forsaking your fiduciary responsibilities. And who actually told the postmaster that the town wouldn't accept that letter? Russ wasn't here on Monday, so it had to be a selectman, right? Where is he and why did he do it?
WE WANT TO KNOW!!
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. "
8 comments:
why would the selectmen turn donw $750 for the van only to sell it for $1?
They are willing to screw the taxpayers because this guy pissed them off?
These are all valid questions.
But I am hopeful that there will be a good outcome.
If the selectmen are conspiring off camera to turn down a $750 offer, so that they can donate it for $1, then whose interests are they looking out for?
Is it their own need to feel good about themselves for helping out this family?
Or are they putting the taxpayers interest before their own? NOT! They NEVER do this!
You all know that the selectmen are not going to call for that special meting until they know they can pack the academy with enough people to change that honor roll article into oblivion, right?
Hello Disgusted:
If the concerned citizens of this town do not do their part to show up and try and fight these things, then yes, the chief will use town resources to drive all of the elderly to the meeting to control the vote. Just like he always does.
Remember, there is no free ride in Atkinson.
you know the old adage:
"there is no honor among thieves" well you could include Atkinson Selectmen in that.
Oh but that would be redundant
Reference anonymous post 6/5/7 @11:32PM...
It's hard to believe the taxpayers in Atkinson will miss the $750.00, yes an "ethical" argument could be made why sell for a buck what when you could receive an additional $749.00.
However, as I recall during the town vote 2007, nearly every warrant article that required spending money (good, bad or indifferent) was passed, so in some sense when it comes to spending money or cost control in terms of what out tax dollars are used for, we as taxpayers stick it to ourselves.
PUBLIUS: ARTICLE SUBMISSION
TOWN OF ATKINSON FOR SALE: $1
The amount of compensation offered for our van ($750) is a secondary issue.
Donation of the van was to a good cause and I doubt many will argue that point. Although we do have our own needy citizens in town and some may argue the van should have been sold and the money donated to someone in need in Atkinson. After all, the chief hands out cash to the elderly in need (this is a fact - see Selectman Meeting Minutes 4/6/06, 7/17/06).
The issue we see is that our selectman and our chief consistently demonstrate they struggle to follow the most basic rules and laws put in place to protect the taxpayers.
Did this whole thing get blown out of proportion? Yes. Is it the Atkinson taxpayers fault?????? OF COURSE NOT FOR PETE'S SAKE! It is OUR van. Not the chief's or the Selectmen.
Had our chief done the right thing and passed the donation suggestion along to the TOWN at a Selectmen meeting to let the Selectmen handle it, and if then the Selectmen followed the basic laws for disposition of town assets, then there would be no debate and the ATKINSON TAXPAYERS would have gotten what they expected from our town officials. Maybe we taxpayers even get some CREDIT for the donation, ya think?
Instead, it becomes a political issue with the chief imposing his mug on the face of the donation.
Attention Danville: the chief does not represent me or any of the other taxpayers. He is not an elected official and in my opinion, he only holds his job because of his political machinations, cronyism and skills in electioneering supported by the badge.
I suspect Mr. Sullivan will chalk this one up to a valuable lesson learned. In my opinion, I think Mr. Sullivan's mistake was his failure to put a stop to the prevailing attitude of "we don't need no stinkin' laws".
This attitude was made evident during the Selectman's meeting when the Chief eloquently defined for us HIS definition of a "Public Sale". The Selectman indicated they wanted Town Counsel to provide clarification on the legal definition of the Selectman's authority to dispose of town assets by "Public Sale" and wanted to know what the legally defined process/definition was for a "public sale" held by the town.
At the meeting, the Chief appeared frustrated with the whole process and offered his version of what a public sale was - he said ....this (meeting) is in the public, and its a sale, so its a public sale! I had to laugh because he came across as being so indignant (ie. we don't need no stinkin' laws).
But I was also laughing because I am aware of the legal requirements for what constitutes a "public sale".
The bigger problem I see is when Selectman Childs makes statements where he said even if someone offered $1,000, it would be refused and the town would donate the van to the needy family. That is some tough talk coming from a town official. While the ultimate intent is in the right place - YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STINKING LAWS, FRED!
No exceptions, EVER. GET IT? You are not above the law. Your position REQUIRES you to represent the taxpayers best interest. That is the job you signed up for, like it or not.
Now the reality is the Selectman are not following good process even for an asset of low value. Most people don't really care because it is for a good cause and it is politically incorrect to be the one person to be an obstacle to a donation to needy people.
If the correct, legal process had been followed from the beginning, nobody would have ever heard about this story. It would have been "check the box, next issue please". Fortunately for the taxpayers, it was not an asset of significant value.
Here is my concern: Does our Selectman's authority to dispose of town assets have any dollar thresholds? In other words, what would prevent them from liquidating other assets of significant value under the flawed process they just followed and set a very bad precedent for - where they knowingly refused a higher offer (don't waste your time arguing this point because it is true, you knew) and publicly stated they would refuse even higher ones!
Let's sell the town for $1!!!
I think it sets a dangerous precedant. And it further demonstrates our town officials are corner cutters and have a strong disregard for existing rules, process and laws they are obligated to obey.
A nice gesture and a family in need has been lost in all the commotion.
The result I now see is other towns are using words like "corruption" when describing Atkinson officials. Gee, I wonder why.
Post a Comment