Here is the Law;
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.
Now appply this to the selectmen's proposed "special meeting" to discuss citizen petitioned warrant articles, 5 days before deliberative session.
1.) This will not be a meeting of the "Legislative Body". It will be a selectman's meeting. What is the difference you may ask; the difference is that at town meeting the selectmen have no official authority, they are merely residents. All authority at town meeting lies in the hands of the moderator. Another difference is that these warrant articles can not be changed, or ammended, only discussed.
2.) This meeting will not stop discussion of these articles on town floor! Therefore it will acomplish nothing.
3.)The selectmen will control the format, location, and therefore discussion of these articles.
What this all boils down to is the selectmen are, once again, using the forum of the selectmen's meeting, to discuss, and deliberate on issues demanded by the citizens to be included in the warrant, five days, hence!
They will use Cable TV, to broadcast this "discussion" to the town. Does ANYONE seriously think that this does NOT fall within the definition of Electioneering, cited above?
Three years ago we had 31 warrant articles on the ballot, never had the need for this type of pre meeting.
in 1998, John Kiley brought in 8 or 9 citizen petition warrant articles, we did not need this type of special discussion session.
So What has changed this year?
Could it be because for the first time we have a board of selectmen that have exhibited a blatent disregard for the law and the will of the voters FOR THE ENTIRE THREE YEARS OF MR. SAPIA'S TENURE?
Could it be that the current board, and our unofficial 4th selectmen do not like these particular warrant articles and wish to undermine their activism?
Could it be that for the first time the people have a forum to speak out, and because of the heavy handed manner in which the powers that be conduct business, feel the need to do it Anonymously, and like the Soviet Union in 1988, they can not find out who the critics are, and therefore can not smear them, and this angers them greatly? Could this be an effort to draw advoates out into the open where they can be identified and harrassed?
Opinions please!
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. "
20 comments:
Doble edged sword!!! If the warrant article to not allow town council to represent town officials from lawsuits is passed
then if we think we've got it bad now I'm afraid it will get a lot worse. I am not saying the current suits have no merit. I am saying that in this suit happy enviroment we live in that our officials need protection from frivilous suits. If all officials must represent themselves in the event of a frivilous suit then no sane person would run for office in the future.
Has Leon considered this???????
I find myself confused by the pros and cons on some of the warrant articles. I think any forums to discuss them, public or private, would help people better understand the issues. I would like to see an informed public attend the Deliberative session. In my mind, any prior discussion on the issues will help. I think the posting condemning the town officials is off the mark and in error in regards to RSA 659:44-a and RSA 273-A:1,IX. RSA 273-A:1,IX defines "Public employee" clearly excepting elected and appointed persons such as the Selectmen. I believe they could organize the discussions without any violation in law.
Thank you Frank.
659:44 Electioneering at the Polling Place. – No election officer shall electioneer while in the performance of his official duties. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' shall mean to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Not sure why you would post an article and then remove it. It was not as vitriolic or nasty as many of those still on your blog.
Maybe I did not complain enough but thought pushing to move forward and actually making change was more important than whining and complaining about all these officials.
It is true what everyone is saying about this blog and that is really too bad.
Instead of informing it is simply a forum for a few to whine and complain about the past without actually having to step up and change the future.
So sad....an opportunity to really make a difference lost.
What article was posted then removed?
What are you talking about?
Please note that the title of 659:44 is "Electioneering at the Polling Place" hopefully keeping voters from being approached while going to vote. I believe the RSA 659:44-a titled "Electioneering by Public Employees" referencing RSA273-A:1,IX clearly allows elected and appointed officials to support and participate in forums recognizing the benefit of an informed public. It is these same RSAs that allowed schools and public places to be used for political forums in the recent Presidential Primary. Many may disagree, but I think it is a good thing.
The Selectmen will continue to enjoy their free legal protection under the law, when conducting town business. Nothing will change.
The proposed warrant article only covers their personal legal fees, if sued on subject matter that has nothing to do with the town. The town has never, or should ever be responsible for personal legal fees.
Hope this clears the issue up for everyone.
Looking forward to seeing you at deliberative session:Sat.Feb. 2nd at 10 AM.
Sincere regards,
Leon Artus
Atkinson Taxpayers For Fair Evaluations Committee
The idea of our selectmen hosting a pre-Deliberative Session discussion of citizen's petitioned warrant artice at a selectmen's meeting is ridiculous and unbelievable.
The selectmen are rude, insulting and verbally abusive to anyone who disagrees with them. Why then would any resident or petitioner in their right mind show up to invite that abuse upon themselves?
I presented one of the two petitions for the Sept. Special Town Meeting. Quite a few residents had taken petition copies around town to get the needed signatures.
When I then presented the citizens' petition at the selectmen's meeting, Childs very nastily, insultingly and slanderously, but not surprisingly for him, immediately attacked me. He outrageously accused me of submitting a fraudulant petition --of trying to pass off an attendance list as a petition.
Sapia, as Chairman, did nothing to restrain Childs in his nastiness. He said nothing, thus encouraging, supporting and allowing the viciousness of Child's attack on me.
After I cited the RSA which requires such a Special Town Meeting after a petition with the correct number of signatures on it is presented, Sapia then flouted the law, and refused to accept the petition from me when I tried to hand it to him. (Just look at a cable tv tape of that meeting!)
Our Town Administrator said nothing about Sapia's refusal to accept the legal petition. It took Paul Sullivan to point out that under the law that they were REQUIRED to accept the citizens' petition and had to hold the Special Town Meeting.
Sapia then had the nerve to attack me for having not put myself formally on the agenda for that meeting (although I had notified the selectmen's office by phone of my intentions to come in under the resident's portion of the meeting WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE BEING PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR).
At the same time, Sapia did not attack Adele Dillon who also submitted a citizens' petition for a special town meeting IMMEDIATELY after I did,-- also during the resident's portion of the meeting and thus, also without being listed on the agenda. Neither of us were town officials, both of us came in as residents during the un-agenda-ed resident's portion of the selectmen's meeting, but only I was viciously attacked by Childs and Sapia.
Now why would I show up at another selectmen's meeting concerning petitioned warrant articles after the abuse I was subjected to the last time I appeared there???
Why would ANY resident or petition signer in their right mind, who witnessed the abuse on cable, show up either?
Atkinson's residents are not stupid.
These particular selectmen have never supported a citizen's petitioned warrant article yet, and do not, according to the Eagle Tribune, support any of the approximately 8 petitioned articles for this up-coming Town Meeting.
Any pre-Deliberative Session meeting hosted by the selectmen would be nothing but an opportunity for further selectmen abuse of petitoners or residents who they disagree with and for illegal electioneering by the selectmen against the petitions.
An answer to Carol Grants ^^^ why ^^^ would anyone want to show up at ^^^ any ^^^ meeting is simple enough. Everyone knows the selectmen are in trouble and have to face the towns voters for what they have wrongfully done in the voters eyes. For that reason alone they have no choice but to ^^^ behave ^^^ and do the voters bidding and allow them to say what they want w/o remarks as they have made in the past. Go to the meetings and be not afraid to do it. .
You can look up the RSAs at:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/default.html
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.
IX. ""Public employee'' means any person employed by a public employer except:
(a) Persons elected by popular vote;
(b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body of the public employer;
(c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public employer; or
(d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed seasonally, irregularly or on call. For the purposes of this chapter, however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of funding of the position in which he is employed.
When you look at the RSAs, I am interpreting "Public Employee" to be someone like the police chief or fire chief. I hate to agree it does state the elected officials are exempt.
That being said, there may be case law that takes precedence; however, I could not find any.
There is a 2006-07 NH Election procedure manual located at:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/FINAL%20EPM%208-30-2006.pdf
Regardless of this, I would not recommend going to this meeting. Nothing good can come from it.
To Anonymous Jan. 21, 4 P.M.,
You misunderstood me. I am in no way "afraid." I'm just so tired of being constantly abused at selectmen's meetings that I just CHOOSE not to ever again put myself in the position where I can be subjected to further abuse from the selectmen.
Self-protection? - Admittedly, Yes.
Fear or being afraid? - Definitely, NOT !
As a past selectwoman, I feel a deep sadness at what selectmen's meetings deteriorated to under Consentino, Childs and Sapia and now continue under Childs and Sapia.
In the past, residents were NEVER abused at selectmen's meetings for saying something which we selectmen didn't agree with.
If we ever disagreed with what a resident was saying, we would still treat them with courtesy and hear them out without rudely interruping them, or making bullying or insulting comments to them.
When the resident finished speaking, even when we disagreed with them, we would still always say, "Thank you for your comments."
That past civility towards residents at meetings disappeared under Phil, Jack and Fred and Atkinson was the loser and continues to be under Fred and Jack.
Abuse of residents who have a different opinion or position from the selectmen has become the norm with the current selectmen.
As far as the petition signers or petition supporters attending any pre-Deliberative Session meeting with the selectmen, I don't want any of them hurt (verbally abused) by the selectmen.
Those petition signers cared enough about our town and protecting our ground water supplies for future generations that they stepped up and signed the two water petitions.
In my book, that makes them pretty special people. I feel a deep gratitude to them for so quickly giving me the needed signatures so the two petitions could be in by the deadline.
And in my gratitude to the petitioners for their help and their caring, I don't want any of them hurt or abused or retaliated against.
So I would hope that none of the petition signers or petition supporters will attend the selectmen's meeting and put themselves in a position to be abused just because they have a different opinion than the selectmen or because they helped me with the petition.
They're good, caring people and I don't want to see them hurt.
Again , I say do not be afraid to speak out at any meeting. With the voting town majority now behind you and petition signers they wouldn't dare show anyone disrespect. I say this because they know if they do from now on they definitely are signing their death warrant politically and in the courts. A five member BOS is needed as another writer said . Ask Mr. A. if there is are more "revelations" from the state investigation that was asked for. Those in the BOS offices are stuck there only because if they resign now they admit their guilt of misconduct. The election is coming up and that seems to be the key to their removal. Please don't encourage others from attending any meetings by your not attending them. If you do then you admit defeat by letting it happen - stand strong as you have in the past and you'll beat them with everyone standing at your side . Atkinson needs strong people to lead the way and you are one of them. Tell the others you talk to to either make a stand by going to the meetings or to be sure to pay the price of their indifference.
could someone please tell me when this "special meeting" with the BOS concerning the warrant articles is suppose to take place, and will it be on cable?
Mr. Polito attended a Budget Committee last night, and indicated his intention was to get all officials involved in Town Meeting together to try to set things up so it would go smoothly.
The Budget Committee, in discussing warrant articles, mentioned that they voted not to vote on recommending the article for Town Administrator because it didn't include any money. I would like to believe that the prposed budget for TA of about $63,000 would certainly be sufficient and the petitioners didn't see a need to provide a monetary figure.
I'm more interested in their petitioned article calling for copies of all field cards on which changes were made to be mailed to the property owners together with an explanation of the changes. I may be wrong, but I think that work is done by the assessors; therefore, there's no money in the budget to cover that expense.
Anon 1/22/08 10:26
Mtg. is 1/29/08 at the Town Hall at 7:00 PM and will be on cable per letter from Moderator Polito.
Thank you adillon, I will try to attend but if I can't I'm glad I will be able to see it on cable
I would like to point out one little problem with televising BOS meetings. It is only available to those who subscribe to Comcast. It is not available to those who use over the air reception only or use satellite.
Perhaps the sessions could be recorded, digitized and made available on Atkinson Taxpayers site.
Good point. Not to mention you have to go to the library to get a VHS copy to see the archived Selectmen's meetings. So if you've converted to DVDs, tough luck. Now you can't see the bad boy behavior of our town officials. Hmmmmmm. The town of Danville has streaming media on their website so you can click on and view selectmen's meetings at your convenience. Wouldn't upgrading our technology be a better investment than some of the stupid wastes of money we see in town. I almost forgot to mention the proposed budget article for $6,000 for CEMETARY software. Now that's a good use of tax dollars to upgrade our technology! LOL
Nice town website by the way. What a joke. We can have the most expensive property in the area but for potential newcomers to Atkinson who look at our town website they must be laughing. But we'll have great cemetary software for when they kick the bucket. This is the post-Elderly Affairs program.
Post a Comment