Residents rebuffed in Right to know requests to Town.

Publius please accept this as a submission article

Most of you watched my presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen on March 24, 2008. For those that did not see that presentation, you can find it at the web address listed below or (thanks to someone else) is posted on the atkinson-factor section of this blog.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=atkinson%2C+nh++&search_type=

Listed below, is a copy of the presentation I made at the selectmen's meeting, and the response from Mr. Paul Sullivan.

Please note that our committee asked them fourteen questions, but (like our assessor) only poorly addressed four.

Our committee will address the real issues in the comment section of this submission, after it is posted and we get a chance to read other comments. For now, enjoy this posting.

Sincere regards,
Leon
Atkinson Taxpayers For Fair Evaluations Committee


Atkinson, NH Selectmen’s Meeting March 25, 2008

WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS 4 DIFFERENT TOPICS

1. ASSESSING
2. RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION
3. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
4. ETHICS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

ASSESSING

THIS BOARD IS IN RECEIPT OF A COURT ORDER BY THE BOARD OF LAND AND TAX APPEALS, (STIMULATED BY
THE ATKINSON TAXPAYERS FOR FAIR EVALUATIONS COMMITTEE), TO SCHEDULE A MEETING TO WORK WITH US
ON OUR FIRST APPEAL OF 2006 PROPERTY TAXES ABATEMENTS.

THIS COURT ORDER VERIFIES OUR POSITION THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN (AS ASSESSORS) TO PROPERLY DO THE JOB OF
ASSESSING AS REQUIRED BY RSA.


ACCORDINGLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK, IF THIS BOARD IS GOING TO REQUIRE TOWN COUNSEL OPINION AS TO THE NECESSITY TO ABIDE BY THIS COURT ORDER, OR CAN WE GET AN APPOINTMENT TIME TONIGHT FOR A
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THIS WEEK?

( WE WANT TO MEET WITH PAUL SULLIVAN NOT THE ASSESSOR ROD WOOD).

RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION

IN JUNE OF 2007, WE HEARD RUMORS THAT THE LAST BOARD OF SELECTMEN WERE IN VIOLATION OF
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS, FOR NOT FILING STORM WATER REPORTS AND THE TOWN WAS BEING FINED. WE ASKED REPEATEDLY, BUT WAS TOLD NOTHING WAS WRONG. RUMORS PREVAILED, AND WE FINALLY FILED A “RIGHT TO KNOW LETTER” IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BEFORE DELIBERATIVE SESSION, SO WE
COULD PROVE OUR TOWN ADMINISTRATOR WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB.


THAT REQUEST ALONG WITH OTHER INFORMATION WE WERE LOOKING FOR, WAS SENT TO TOWN COUNSEL FOR OPINION, KNOWING THE INFORMATION WOULD BE REQUIRED. THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT SUPPLIED
UNTIL WELL AFTER DELIBERATIVE SESSION, AND CONTAINED NO INFORMATION AS TO THE STORM WATER
REPORTS WE WERE LOOKING FOR. IN FACT, ALL THE FOLDERS WE WERE GIVEN FOR INSPECTION CONTAINED
ALMOST NOTING REQUIRED IN THE “RIGHT TO KNOW LETTER”. WE WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY, THAT WAS
ALL THE INFORMATION THE TOWN HAD IN ITS FILES.

WE SCANNED THE INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE, AND LEFT THE BUILDING, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNEW THE TOWN HAD BEEN FINED FROM ANOTHER SCORCE.


TWO DAYS LATER, (BEFORE WE COULD BREAK THE NEWS TO THE TAXPAYERS OF ATKINSON) THE EAGLE TRIBUNE RAN AN ARTICLE REGARDING THE FINE. WE RETURNED TO THE TOWN HALL THE NEXT DAY TO INSPECT THE FILES AGAIN, ONLY TO FIND THE INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE TRIBULE ARTICLE MAGICALLY APPEARED IN THE TOWN FILES. (ALONG WITH OTHER INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY DECLARED)

WE SCANNED THIS NEW INFORMATION FOR COMPARISON AGAINST WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY GIVEN.

IN THAT INFORMATION: WAS A JANUARY 2007 LETTER TO THE PREVIOUS BOARD, STATING NO LESS THAN THREE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS OF THE EPA HAD INFORMED THE BOARD THAT TWO YEARS WORTH OF REPORTS
WERE MISSING AND HAD NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.


MY QUESTIONS TO YOU TONIGHT ARE:


1. WHY DIDN’T THE PRIOR BOARD KNOW THOSES REPORTS WERE REQUIRED?

2. WHY WEREN’T THEY COMPLETED IN TIME?

3. WHY DIDN’T THE PRIOR BOARD REPREMAND THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR AND VERIFY THE REPORTS WERE FILED CORRECTLY, BEFORE THE TOWN WAS FINED $5,000 OF TAXPAYER MONIES?

4. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WITHHOLDING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN OUR “RIGHT TO KNOW” LETTERS?

5. IS THIS NEW BOARD OF SELECTMEN GOING TO CONTINUE THE POLICY OF “NOT COMPLYING WITH” RIGHT TO KNOW REQUESTS, OR ARE THEY GOING TO MEET THEIR LEGAL, TIMELY OBLIGATIONS REGARDING FUTURE “RIGHT TO KNOW” LETTERS?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

IN THIS LAST ELECTION, SIGNAGE WAS MADE AN ISSUE. IN PARTICULAR, THE ATKINSON REPORTER
BLOGSPOT.COM SIGNS WERE DECLARED ILLEGAL, BASED ON LEGAL OPINION (AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE)
DESPERSED BY THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD JACK SAPIA. THAT BOARD ORDERED THE SIGNS REMOVED
(HOPEFULLY NOT DESTROYED) AND PERSONS (NOT NAMED) RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING SAID SIGNS, WERE
LABELED COWARDS.


LATER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT MR. SAPIA HAD LIED TO THE BOARD REGARDING WHAT LEGAL COUNSEL
HAD ACTUALLY TOLD HIM, AND THE SIGNS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED.


MY QUESTIONS TO YOU ARE:

1. WHY ARE NOT ALL SELECTMEN ADVISED BY TOWN COUNSEL ON ANY OPINION RENDERED?

2. WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BY THE REST OF THE SELECTMEN?

3. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SIGNS, AND WHEN WILL THEY BE RETURNED?

4. WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN, (OR WILL BE TAKEN) TO REPREMAND MR. SAPIA FOR HIS ACTIONS?

5. WHAT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN ISSUED TO CORRECT THE FACT THE SIGNS WERE NOT ILLEGAL?

6. WHAT HAVE THE SELECTMEN DONE, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANOTHER LEGAL SUIT AGAINST THE TOWN?

7. WHAT STEPS IS THE TOWN GOING TO TAKE, TO INSURE FREEDOM OF SPEECH WILL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON AGAIN?

8. WHEN WILL A PUBLIC APOLIGY BE GIVEN TO THOSE ATKINSON TAXPAYERS THAT WERE BRANDED COWARDS?

ETHICS

IN LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT MR. SAPIA LIED TO THE BOARD REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS, OUR
COMMITTEE HAS A REAL PROBLEM WITH JACK SERVING ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMITTEE. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE BOARD INTENDS TO DO, TO REMOVE HIM FROM SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT HE NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN ANY PUBLIC CAPACITY, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.


Please see Mr. Sullivan’s response letter below. Note it is dated 26 March 2008, ( two days after presentation at the Selectmen’s meeting) but is misleading since it was not delivered until April 5, 2008 AT 5PM BEHIND TOWN HALL!


PAUL SULLIVAN’S RESPONSE

26 March 2008

Mr. Leon Artus
114 Maple Avenue
Atkinson, New Hampshire 03811

RE: Questions received during the BOS meeting of 24 March 2008

Dear Mr. Artus

I am writing in response to the questions you presented at the Selectmen’s meeting of March 24, 2008. First I would like to thank you for the professional manner in which you presented yourself during the meeting. It is my goal as Chairman to move all meetings forward in a timely, professional and progressive manner and I sincerely appreciate your cooperation.

In regard to your request, I offer the following:

ASSESSING:

I have reviewed the current files in regard to all notices received from the Board of Land and Tax Appeals. The board of Selectmen’s office will contact, in writing, the resident who has filed the tax appeal directly in response to any and all such notices. Please understand that all communications in this regard are directed to the actual individual who has filed the claim unless we have received a certified “power of attorney” from the landowner fully authorizing an agent to act on their behalf. This authorization includes full authority in regard to all financial issues for the landowner.

RIGHT TO KNOW:

The responsibility for the filing of the storm water reports that is the subject of your questions on this item lies within the Road Agent and the Town Administrator. The Board of Selectmen was not advised of the delay in filing such report until the filing deadline had passed. In regard to the reprimand you question, any actions that may or may not have been taken in regard to our past town administrator would have taken place in a non-public session under RESA 91-A and any information in that regard would not be available to the general public.

The responsibility for receiving and responding to any and all resident request would first rest in the hands of the Town Administrator and subsequently the Selectmen. It is the intent of the current board of selectmen as well as it was the intent of the past board to fully follow the requirements of the RSA’s in all areas including the “Right to Know”.

Freedom of Speech:

Please understand that all communications between the Board of Selectmen and the Town attorney is held as privileged and is not open to general discussion. The decision to remove the signs in question was made as a unanimous decision by the board of selectmen during a regularly scheduled meeting. At this point, It is unknown by the current board as to the location of any such signs that you reference as removed and therefore we cannot speak to the return of such. Also, as freedom of speech is the issue at hand, it would be inappropriate for this board to comment in regard to the statement make by a resident.

It is the endeavor of the board of selectmen to move forward in an open and positive way and do what is in the best interest of the Town and its residents as a whole. In doing so0, we look to protect the town and its residents, to the best of our ability, in regard to all potential pitfalls.

ETHICS:

Mr. Sapia signed up as a candidate for the Conflict of Interest Committee and was subject to the same process of election as all other candidates for their subsequent positions. The results of such election as decided by the majority vote of the residents of Atkinson, who actually voted, have placed Mr. Sapia on the Conflict of Interest Committee. The Board of Selectmen has no authority to intervene in this process.

Thank you for your continued interest and concern in the betterment of the Town of Atkinson.

Sincerely,

Paul Sullivan
Chairman Atkinson Board of Selectman