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.
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. "
13 comments:
I constantly hear the selectmen and the chief whine about the level of scrutiny their every move engenders. and the questions raised about thier every action. I have heard Jack and Phil whine and cry about the pressures of lawsuits and questions described as harrassment.
What these gentlemen(I use the term sarcasticly) do not seem to realise is that this is a bed of their own making. We watch and question because they have proven that we can not trust them.
They bought a $30,000 SUV without public disclosure, and without a vote, no matter what fibs the chief tells, this happened 8 days after town meeting, do you REALLY believe they didn't know that was their intention?
They hired(promoted) created the towns first full time Lt. position in the PD, without a warrant article, or an ad, or screening process, this position costs the town $85,000/yr.
They have through their actions and inactions cost the town over $100,000 in legal fees. Two years agao Jack stated in a public meeting that there were over 10 lawsuits on their desks that Sumner was dealing with, and that is why he had to have his retainer TRIPLED! 6 of those case involved the chief!
They have refused to follow town passed warrant articles. They have gotten legal advise to try and avoid others. They can not even dispose of a lousy $500 van properly, because their egos(read chiefs ego) can not share accolades for doling out our money, to out of town families. I am not criticizing the donation, just the selectmen's manipulation of it.
I am sorry to say that this is the most corrupt town government I have seen.
too true, they also don't get it that the reason we demanded a special town meeting is that we don't trust them to do their jobs. They need orders from us that they can't screw up, or wiggle out of.
I agree!
Atkinson's selectmen are not trustworthy!
Atkinson's police chief has demonstrated his lack of trustworthiness time and time again.
It is time to remove these people before they can take any more from us.
Does anybody know if the public sale took place on Friday, and was the van transferred to the family.
dont know, and it hardly matters, it was not a "public sale" there was no public present, and they stated beforehand that they would reject any other offers, how is that a public sale, if there is a pre- drawn conclusion?
And does anyone know how and when these jokers increased the size of the police fleet? Again no public discussion, no public vote, but we have 11 vehicles now, and two running around with new signage.
Maybe if we didnt have more than two cars for every ONE full time officer, the chief wouldn't have backed one into another!
How the hell did we get another car?
and why? We only have one officer on patrol at a time, who the hell will drive all 11 of them?
And who the hell authorized the trade?
Chief needs a car for each family member working for at the APD.
As I understand it, if officers are "on call" they can be given a town vehicle to take home.
Do the math. Not sure how many actually are or NEED to be on call. You could always ask the chief. Good luck getting answers.
Funny thing is, all of the criminal activity is occurring at the town hall and at the Atkinson PD.
So my understanding at this point is that the 2000 town meeting vote authorized the selectmen to dispose of town assets, but only by means of a "public sale". Presumably that would mean some sort of advance notice, in a public place, and any party should be able to present a bid.
I don't think it is correct to say that it was not "public" if the public was not present. After all, most properly posted (RSA 91-A:2) "public meetings" are not attended by the public, at least in my experience in Danville.
I think it would have been better if they had accepted my letter and then simply said that they would not accept my offer at that time because it would not be in compliance with the requirement for a "public sale", but that I or a representative would be welcome to present a bid at the appointed place and time. I don't really know, but I think that they might have been motivated by a desire for a quiet resolution to the whole thing, with some regard for my position, believe it or not.
It would have been better, perhaps, if they had contacted me to advise me of the date, time, and place of the public sale, then there could be no accusation that they were ducking my offer.
Of course I knew in advance that the sale would be on Friday. I'm sure I could have found out the time and place, and I or a representative could have shown up with another certified check (the one I sent them only came back yesterday). I chose not to do that, so AFAIK there would have been only one bid, some designated person offering $1 on behalf of the Phillips family.
In actual fact, no bid was received by the town of Atkinson from me. I am the only person who knows for certain whether the envelope that the town refused to accept actually contained the signed original copy of my letter (note that no image of the letter has been posted, only the purported text) and the certified check.
As I stated, the certified check constituted my offer, and it was not received by the town.
As for statements that were made about not accepting higher bids, be they $750 or $1,000, in the absence of actual bids these are just statements by individual board members, not corroborated by votes or actions.
In summary, when all is said and done I have no reason to believe at this time that they did not carry out a proper "public sale" on Friday. But I have very few facts to go on, including whether the sale was posted or advertised, and even whether it actually took place.
however the point you miss Mr. Springer is that this board consumates lots of actions by one member stating something without a vote.
They bought a $30,000 SUV that way. They admitted having illegal unposted, unminuted meetings to decide how to handle your offer, just as they admitted doing this to decide how to handle Mrs. Grant when she was coming in to make a formal complaint about the chiefs actions. They decided not to adhere to the 2005 town meeting vote to place the Vietnam honor roll panels without a vote.
They decided to only trade one cruiser in on the two new ones instead of two as they and the chief told the town and the budget committee this year.
They committ many actions without a vote, and when called on it they claim a consensus.
The only reason they get away with it is that noone wants to go through the trouble of taking them to court. Look what happens when they do, Acciard took them to court, and won at the superior court three times, and the Supreme Court once, and he is still burned in effigy for it.
It just doesn't pay, I only hope the voters remember this crap when it comes time to re-elect these cretins.
Please understand, I am not making any general endorsement of how business is conducted in the town of Atkinson. I agree that there are policy and procedural issues around the management and disposition of town assets, vehicles in particular. I would be very surprised if any municipal consulting firm would recommend that a full-time PD be headed up by a part-time chief. It is highly unlikely that the best candidate for chief of a professional full time police department the size of Atkinson's would want the department to be involved with elderly or other social service missions that are not normally seen as part of the mission of a professional PD.
For my own sake, I'm simply trying to get to some closure on this one rusty van, recognizing that Atkinson people have reason to see it as a token of larger issues. Nevertheless, my impression at this time is that when all is said and done, the actual sale on Friday, if it happened, most likely complied with the conditions of the town vote. It seems I probably won't know for sure, though, until I get a chance to read the 6/4 minutes on your town's web site. My stickers are all current and my tail lights are all working, so perhaps I might even drive to your town hall to look at them. :-)
A video tape of the Atkinson Bos Meeting is "normally" made by the Atkinson Library and is available on loan. Borrow and watch.
Curt: Here's the spooky part. Chief already knows if your registration/stickers are all current and you have no tail lights out.
Your chief confirmed via email that the vehicle was delivered on Friday. My check will go out in tomorrow's mail.
Post a Comment