Atkinson feels loss of popular businessman
By John Basilesco
Staff Writer
ATKINSON — Lifelong resident and local businessman Peter Lewis died doing what he loved most — cutting hay on his farm on Salem Road.
Lewis, 68, who had been battling cancer for the past year, was cutting hay Wednesday morning when he suffered a heart attack, according to his brother.
Steven Lewis said his brother had undergone a chemotherapy treatment Tuesday and had been doing much better.
"He died doing what he loved doing," Lewis said, his voice breaking. "It was a beautiful day. He was out on his tractor cutting hay. That was his true passion — farming."
While he operated a small cattle farm, his main business was Lewis Builders in Atkinson, one of the largest building companies in New Hampshire, his brother said. Along with building houses and condominiums, the company built Atkinson Country Club in the 1990s.
Born and raised on a large dairy farm in town, Peter Lewis lived in Atkinson his whole life.
He was an active member of the community. He helped Atkinson in many ways — often behind the scenes — his brother and friends said. This included helping create Atkinson's new town center on Academy Avenue.
"We are all going to feel a great loss in this community with the passing of Peter Lewis," selectmen's Chairman Paul Sullivan said. "Peter is citizen of the decade, if not citizen of the century, for the town of Atkinson."
He served on countless town committees and task forces, helping with a wide variety of projects, including the town center and a new library.
"He was honest, direct and a very private individual," Sullivan said. "His company built residential neighborhoods in Atkinson and, more recently, it built the landmark Atkinson Country Club, which put Atkinson on the map. He had a vision and he built that restaurant and the country club that is enjoyed by many people in this town and surrounding towns."
Police Chief Philip Consentino, a longtime friend, said, "Peter and I were close friends. It's almost a lifetime we have known each other. Only six months in age separated us. I'm sure going to miss him. One of the big differences between Peter and I is that when we got in trouble, I always got caught, but he never did."
Martin Feuer, another longtime friend, said, "I think he will be missed by all the citizens of Atkinson. He always had the interests of Atkinson and its citizens at heart. He's done a lot of wonderful things for a lot of people. He was a very quiet fellow, unassuming, and always willing to lend a hand no matter what the situation was."
Feuer said he will never forget the time his sawmill roof caved in many years ago under the weight of heavy snow. Lewis and his father came over and spent a couple of days rebuilding the roof. They wouldn't take a penny for their efforts, Feuer said.
"He would always be the one that would show up if there was any work to be done in town," Feuer said. "He was always willing to help any group that needed any assistance with both his time and also with his funds."
Along with Lewis Builders, Lewis owned Hampstead Water Co. and East Coast Lumber, a popular business on Route 111 in Hampstead that he owned with one of Feuer's sons.
Stephen Lewis said his brother remained humble despite his business success.
Even though he was the owner of Lewis Builders, it wasn't unusual to see him operating construction equipment or handling a shovel side by side with his employees at a construction site, Lewis said.
"He came from very modest beginnings and everything he had he worked for and earned," Lewis said. "We grew up in a house with no central heating or running water."
"He was a self-made man. He didn't go to college, but he had an abstract ability to look at problems and find solutions that other people wouldn't see. He could look at some land and know just how a street should be built on it, including the drainage."
Peter Lewis is survived by his wife, Alice, two children and four grandchildren.
Saturday, May 31
Thursday, May 29
Timberlane looks to target truancy Superintendent considering partnership with court
Timberlane looks to target truancy Superintendent considering partnership with court system
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
PLAISTOW — Timberlane officials are considering the possibility of holding court in school to help them cut down on students skipping class.
The Timberlane Regional School Board recently voted to hire a truant officer, but the district's intervention might not stop there.
Superintendent Richard La Salle is also exploring the possibility of partnering with the state family court system to see if it could hold court at the high school once a week or initiate a fine for parents who repeatedly fail to send their children to class. If it did so, Timberlane would be the first school in this area to take this step.
"This is a last resort," La Salle said. "Our administrators work very hard."
Truancy — an unexcused absence from class — becomes habitual at 20-1/2 absences, said Charles Coker, Timberlane's director of secondary education. If a parent doesn't know why a student is out, or the administration doesn't agree with a parent's reason, the school also considers the student truant.
So far this year, there are 13 students at the high school who fall into that category, Coker said. That's down from 28 students last year and 33 the year before, he said. But those figures could still change before the school year is over.
"Those people could use significant interventions," he said.
Both La Salle and Coker have worked in districts where the court system has been involved.
La Salle said while he worked in Nashua, parents who didn't send frequently absent kids to school were fined $200 for each day the student missed.
Coker said his former school district in St. Louis held family court in the school once a week. That seemed to drive the message home very quickly, he said.
Sarah Browning, who handles attendance and discipline issues for the state Department of Education, said a setup like this with the court system would be done on a district-by-district basis. But any school that has a frequently truant student can file a Child in Need of Services petition in juvenile court and bring everyone involved in front of a judge.
"While that isn't often the first step, I wouldn't characterize it as uncommon," she said.
The practice of bringing the court hearing into the school would be a good use of community resources and could work as a model for other schools if it were to work out for Timberlane, Browning said.
"In this day and age, we need to think outside the box and be creative," she said.
Currently at Timberlane, the only tools administrators have to combat truancy are after-school detentions, Saturday detentions, counseling from guidance and suspension. But Coker said suspension is not an appropriate solution to those who skip school.
Truancy is mostly a high school problem, and isn't as much of an issue in the lower level schools, Coker said.
Elementary school parents always call in when their children are sick, and only a few don't send their child to school "appropriately," he said. The same goes at the middle school, he said, where most students haven't figured out how to disappear on their own yet.
Timberlane has had $1,100 in its budget for a truant officer position for a few years now, but never hired anyone to fill it. La Salle is looking for someone who would work on a contractual basis and do mostly home visits to try to get families back on track. He'd like to bring someone on board as soon as possible.
The truant officer — who would have either a counseling or law enforcement background — could occasionally use the "old-fashioned" method of grabbing students off the streets and driving them back to school, he said.
But officials want this person to meet with parents of the students who miss the most school and help them get compliance from their children, La Salle said. It could be that there is a separate issue, like addiction, and the officer would help those parents find resources to help.
The truant officer could also file a Child in Need of Services petition in juvenile court, asking the court to intervene, he said.
If a student is missing a lot of school, it's usually for one of two reasons, La Salle said. Either the child is out of control and delinquent, or the child is being raised by an irresponsible parent, he said.
A judge could interpret that in many ways, but, either way, four hearings would have to be held. It could be a benefit to have those held in the school so administrators don't have to leave the building, Coker said.
Other school districts in the area have truant officers, but none has an agreement with the court like the one Timberlane is considering.
Keith Pfeiffer, superintendent of the Sanborn Regional School District, said he uses the police chiefs in Kingston and Newton, as well as the school resource officer, as truant officers. While that system works well, he was intrigued by the idea of bringing the court system into the school.
"That would be a nice idea," Pfeiffer said. "Typically, we go to Rockingham County in Brentwood, which is not too far from us."
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
PLAISTOW — Timberlane officials are considering the possibility of holding court in school to help them cut down on students skipping class.
The Timberlane Regional School Board recently voted to hire a truant officer, but the district's intervention might not stop there.
Superintendent Richard La Salle is also exploring the possibility of partnering with the state family court system to see if it could hold court at the high school once a week or initiate a fine for parents who repeatedly fail to send their children to class. If it did so, Timberlane would be the first school in this area to take this step.
"This is a last resort," La Salle said. "Our administrators work very hard."
Truancy — an unexcused absence from class — becomes habitual at 20-1/2 absences, said Charles Coker, Timberlane's director of secondary education. If a parent doesn't know why a student is out, or the administration doesn't agree with a parent's reason, the school also considers the student truant.
So far this year, there are 13 students at the high school who fall into that category, Coker said. That's down from 28 students last year and 33 the year before, he said. But those figures could still change before the school year is over.
"Those people could use significant interventions," he said.
Both La Salle and Coker have worked in districts where the court system has been involved.
La Salle said while he worked in Nashua, parents who didn't send frequently absent kids to school were fined $200 for each day the student missed.
Coker said his former school district in St. Louis held family court in the school once a week. That seemed to drive the message home very quickly, he said.
Sarah Browning, who handles attendance and discipline issues for the state Department of Education, said a setup like this with the court system would be done on a district-by-district basis. But any school that has a frequently truant student can file a Child in Need of Services petition in juvenile court and bring everyone involved in front of a judge.
"While that isn't often the first step, I wouldn't characterize it as uncommon," she said.
The practice of bringing the court hearing into the school would be a good use of community resources and could work as a model for other schools if it were to work out for Timberlane, Browning said.
"In this day and age, we need to think outside the box and be creative," she said.
Currently at Timberlane, the only tools administrators have to combat truancy are after-school detentions, Saturday detentions, counseling from guidance and suspension. But Coker said suspension is not an appropriate solution to those who skip school.
Truancy is mostly a high school problem, and isn't as much of an issue in the lower level schools, Coker said.
Elementary school parents always call in when their children are sick, and only a few don't send their child to school "appropriately," he said. The same goes at the middle school, he said, where most students haven't figured out how to disappear on their own yet.
Timberlane has had $1,100 in its budget for a truant officer position for a few years now, but never hired anyone to fill it. La Salle is looking for someone who would work on a contractual basis and do mostly home visits to try to get families back on track. He'd like to bring someone on board as soon as possible.
The truant officer — who would have either a counseling or law enforcement background — could occasionally use the "old-fashioned" method of grabbing students off the streets and driving them back to school, he said.
But officials want this person to meet with parents of the students who miss the most school and help them get compliance from their children, La Salle said. It could be that there is a separate issue, like addiction, and the officer would help those parents find resources to help.
The truant officer could also file a Child in Need of Services petition in juvenile court, asking the court to intervene, he said.
If a student is missing a lot of school, it's usually for one of two reasons, La Salle said. Either the child is out of control and delinquent, or the child is being raised by an irresponsible parent, he said.
A judge could interpret that in many ways, but, either way, four hearings would have to be held. It could be a benefit to have those held in the school so administrators don't have to leave the building, Coker said.
Other school districts in the area have truant officers, but none has an agreement with the court like the one Timberlane is considering.
Keith Pfeiffer, superintendent of the Sanborn Regional School District, said he uses the police chiefs in Kingston and Newton, as well as the school resource officer, as truant officers. While that system works well, he was intrigued by the idea of bringing the court system into the school.
"That would be a nice idea," Pfeiffer said. "Typically, we go to Rockingham County in Brentwood, which is not too far from us."
The Right to Know issue, from someone who is involved
Publius, please accept this as an ARTICLE SUBMISSION.
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation to the Board of Selectmen, regarding DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION by our Selectmen is now on youtube for your immediate viewing. It is only 7 minutes long! Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YPBWB_jDE
Town Government cries “FOUL” to the press, when caught denying, refusing, and illegally withholding - - Right to Know Information. This is a clear case of Selectmen “trying to put a shine on a sneaker” before being held accountable to a higher authority. What the video shows - Chairman of the Board Paul Sullivan at the Selectmen’s Meeting on 5/5/2008 restricts town resident Mr. Brownfield to only 10 minutes to discuss (1) DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION, (2) Freedom of Speech, (3) A new petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by more than 150 taxpayers. Sullivan refuses to allow Mr. Brownfield to appear again before the Board to discuss Items (2) and (3). Brownfield's Freedom of Speech to discuss Freedom of Speech is denied as is legally required Right to Know information.
Tuesday, May 6
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
Brownfield says: I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to Mr. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues, Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election and the new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
3. Sullivan promised in the video to ANSWER IN WRITING the following question –“Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?” To date (5/29/2008) No ANSWER IN WRITING by Sullivan has been provided. This is yet another BROKEN PROMISE just as the Selectmen’s Office is “littered” with broken promises to provide Right to Know Information to the citizens of Atkinson.
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation regarding DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION by our Selectmen is now on youtube for your immediate viewing. It is only 7 minutes long! Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YPBWB_jDE
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation to the Board of Selectmen, regarding DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION by our Selectmen is now on youtube for your immediate viewing. It is only 7 minutes long! Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YPBWB_jDE
Town Government cries “FOUL” to the press, when caught denying, refusing, and illegally withholding - - Right to Know Information. This is a clear case of Selectmen “trying to put a shine on a sneaker” before being held accountable to a higher authority. What the video shows - Chairman of the Board Paul Sullivan at the Selectmen’s Meeting on 5/5/2008 restricts town resident Mr. Brownfield to only 10 minutes to discuss (1) DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION, (2) Freedom of Speech, (3) A new petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by more than 150 taxpayers. Sullivan refuses to allow Mr. Brownfield to appear again before the Board to discuss Items (2) and (3). Brownfield's Freedom of Speech to discuss Freedom of Speech is denied as is legally required Right to Know information.
Tuesday, May 6
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
Brownfield says: I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to Mr. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues, Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election and the new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
3. Sullivan promised in the video to ANSWER IN WRITING the following question –“Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?” To date (5/29/2008) No ANSWER IN WRITING by Sullivan has been provided. This is yet another BROKEN PROMISE just as the Selectmen’s Office is “littered” with broken promises to provide Right to Know Information to the citizens of Atkinson.
Mr. Brownfield’s presentation regarding DENIAL OF RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION by our Selectmen is now on youtube for your immediate viewing. It is only 7 minutes long! Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YPBWB_jDE
Wednesday, May 28
Atkinson selectmen, residents at odds over right-to-know requests
Article submission: Eagle Tribune, today...May 28, 2008
Atkinson selectmen, residents at odds over right-to-know requests
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — Town officials said they are overburdened by right-to-know requests that are too broad to easily research.
Selectmen want to know if they are legally required to do lengthy research to fulfill the blanket requests, according to selectmen's Chairman Paul Sullivan.
The town has sent a response letter to each request, but those making the requests said they aren't getting the information they want — and they don't think they ever will.
Some requests have been for copies of minutes from each meeting during which a specific topic was discussed, Sullivan said. The time it takes for staff members to go through each set of minutes and look for a specific topic costs the town money, he said.
"We need to figure out if this is our obligation to research," he said.
It's not, according to Bill Chapman, a Concord attorney who specializes in right-to-know law. Government bodies are required to fulfill reasonably described requests, he said.
"If we look at it from just a common sense basis, to say all minutes where a particular matter has been discussed is not reasonably describing it," Chapman said.
The person filing the request should ask for copies of minutes from specific meeting dates, he said. Or, since agencies are required to keep all minutes on file, the person asking should be able to look through years of minutes themselves, he said.
"The purpose of the right-to-know law is to not only honor the public's right to know, but also to not put undue burden on the governing body," Chapman said.
He said he doesn't recall a case where the words "reasonably described" were challenged. But those who file right-to-know requests in Atkinson have not been satisfied with the town's answers, and one resident said he's ready to challenge officials on it.
Leon Artus said between his committee — Atkinson Taxpayers for Fair Evaluations — and others, more than 30 right-to-know requests have been filed in town since the beginning of the year. He said many of those requests are "in transition" now because he didn't get the answers he wanted.
"Never have, and obviously never will, until it's taken to a higher authority," he said.
But selectmen maintain they are following the law.
Selectman Bill Friel said requests need to be more specific.
"This one also asks for some conclusions for us to answer, which isn't part of the right-to-know law," he said.
Large green, black and white Right to Know Law signs are now posted around Town Hall, reminding residents of what they can and cannot request.
The town is required, by law, to respond to the requests within five business days. But with requests for all public mentions of a certain subject, such as assessing, there isn't time for interim Town Administrator Craig Kleman to do lots of research, especially in that time frame, the selectmen said.
Since he arrived in April, Kleman said he has worked on four right-to-know projects. The requests ranged from meeting minutes to information on personnel files, which cannot be publicly released, he said.
"It's a very time-consuming process and, you know, you want to make sure you are really answering the spirit of the right-to-know law," he said.
Kleman said he couldn't estimate how long he spends on each case nor the total amount of time he has spent.
Atkinson selectmen, residents at odds over right-to-know requests
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — Town officials said they are overburdened by right-to-know requests that are too broad to easily research.
Selectmen want to know if they are legally required to do lengthy research to fulfill the blanket requests, according to selectmen's Chairman Paul Sullivan.
The town has sent a response letter to each request, but those making the requests said they aren't getting the information they want — and they don't think they ever will.
Some requests have been for copies of minutes from each meeting during which a specific topic was discussed, Sullivan said. The time it takes for staff members to go through each set of minutes and look for a specific topic costs the town money, he said.
"We need to figure out if this is our obligation to research," he said.
It's not, according to Bill Chapman, a Concord attorney who specializes in right-to-know law. Government bodies are required to fulfill reasonably described requests, he said.
"If we look at it from just a common sense basis, to say all minutes where a particular matter has been discussed is not reasonably describing it," Chapman said.
The person filing the request should ask for copies of minutes from specific meeting dates, he said. Or, since agencies are required to keep all minutes on file, the person asking should be able to look through years of minutes themselves, he said.
"The purpose of the right-to-know law is to not only honor the public's right to know, but also to not put undue burden on the governing body," Chapman said.
He said he doesn't recall a case where the words "reasonably described" were challenged. But those who file right-to-know requests in Atkinson have not been satisfied with the town's answers, and one resident said he's ready to challenge officials on it.
Leon Artus said between his committee — Atkinson Taxpayers for Fair Evaluations — and others, more than 30 right-to-know requests have been filed in town since the beginning of the year. He said many of those requests are "in transition" now because he didn't get the answers he wanted.
"Never have, and obviously never will, until it's taken to a higher authority," he said.
But selectmen maintain they are following the law.
Selectman Bill Friel said requests need to be more specific.
"This one also asks for some conclusions for us to answer, which isn't part of the right-to-know law," he said.
Large green, black and white Right to Know Law signs are now posted around Town Hall, reminding residents of what they can and cannot request.
The town is required, by law, to respond to the requests within five business days. But with requests for all public mentions of a certain subject, such as assessing, there isn't time for interim Town Administrator Craig Kleman to do lots of research, especially in that time frame, the selectmen said.
Since he arrived in April, Kleman said he has worked on four right-to-know projects. The requests ranged from meeting minutes to information on personnel files, which cannot be publicly released, he said.
"It's a very time-consuming process and, you know, you want to make sure you are really answering the spirit of the right-to-know law," he said.
Kleman said he couldn't estimate how long he spends on each case nor the total amount of time he has spent.
Towns Merge Police Departments
Anonymous said...
Publius: Article Submission:
Towns Merge Police Departments
Why not Atkinson & Plaistow?
Manchester Union Leader
TOWNS TEAM UP FOR POLICE PROTECTION
By KATHRYN MARCHOCKI
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Monday, May. 26, 2008
The small, southern New Hampshire towns of Greenville and Temple broke barriers when they forged a new jointly run police department three years ago.
The concept has been such a hit in terms of efficiency, savings, and retaining high-quality officers that the towns recently renewed their agreement for five years and caught the eye of other communities exploring regional police services, local officials said.
"For us, it's been fantastic," Temple-Greenville Police Chief James H. McTague said.
"I'm not saying a merger is for everyone. But based on our experience, it was the best thing that either town could have done," he added.
Still, McTague admits convincing the two towns to give up their separate police departments and create a joint new one was a hard sell.
Merging police forces -- or fire departments and road agents for that matter -- strikes at the heart of New Hampshire's precious local control credo. But Yankee thrift can be equally compelling and seems to be driving the latest cluster of communities considering a shared force.
"With costs and everything today, you've got to say, 'Okay, how do we get the most bang for the buck?' We've got to look at every option," Antrim Town Administrator Bill Prokop said.
Antrim recently joined with Deering, Bennington and Hancock -- all communities of less than 2,700 tucked in the northwestern corner of Hillsborough County -- to explore a regional police force. The recent departure of Antrim's police chief provided the opportunity to revisit the issue.
"We're always trying to cut or maintain costs and improve services," especially in an era of rising fuel, health insurance and retirement costs, Antrim Selectmen Chairman Michael D. Genest said.
McTague predicts other communities will give regionalization a serious look given the savings it offers.
Greenville shaved $115,000 from its police budget and Temple $46,000 during the first year their towns merged forces, he said.
A joint force also solved problems that towns struggled with individually. Temple no longer had to build a police station to replace its one-room quarters and got better coverage, while Greenville got a good quality force, McTague explained. And he said better pay staunched the flow of officers leaving to work at other forces just after the towns invested considerable money in training and equipping them.
"I think you are going to find more and more towns say, when their chief retires or move on, that this is something we should consider, especially with the economy and officers (leaving)," McTague said.
"I think more communities are looking at it than they have in the past," agreed Earl M. Sweeney, the state's assistant commissioner of safety.
More towns have seen their populations rise from 300 to 400 people to 1,200 to 1,400 -- large enough to have more crime and collisions, but not big enough to field their own full-time police departments, he said.
"We've got some of these communities at the awkward stage that they are not quite large enough to have a police department, but they have enough business that the citizens want a little more protection. Some of these small communities might be able to band together and create a regional police department," Sweeney added.
And state police, which generally would cover these towns, "are stretched," Sweeney said. There aren't enough troopers to provide 24-hour coverage statewide and response times can be long, he added.
Yankee tradition
Advantages of regional police forces include economies of scale that can allow towns to put more cruisers on the road, provide round-the-clock coverage and even hire a detective to follow up on cases, Sweeney said.
But the hurdles can be significant.
Towns must consider topography, square miles a regional force would cover, response time, and be in the same county and served by the same district court, Sweeney said.
Regional police forces -- while common in other parts of the country -- are rare in New Hampshire.
The state law that allows communities to forge intermunicipal agreements is 31 years old. But the Temple-Greenville Police Department is the only one created under the statute currently in existence.
"It's a New England, Yankee tradition that we like to have control of our own municipal services," Sweeney said. "It's like community policing; everyone likes to have their own police officer."
"It's a New Hampshire thing," Cheshire County Sheriff Richard A. Foote agreed. "People have their own police departments and their police chiefs and that's what the individual towns want .... There is no right or wrong decision."
But James B. Andrews, who wrote and helped pass RSA 53-A, said the intermunicipal agreement law enables towns to govern themselves more efficiently, less expensively and with more professional help.
"I can't understand why there hasn't been a lot of them. I don't think that's progressive," added Andrews, executive director of the New Hampshire Local Government Center Inc., a nonprofit group that represents cities and towns.
"Maybe there is the thought that, 'Oh, we're going to lose some control,' which isn't the case. It makes financial sense and it makes good government sense," he added.
It's more common for small towns to hire a county sheriff's department or larger, neighboring community to provide police coverage for a fee than to create shared police departments, state and county officials said. For instance, Gilsum, a town of about 740 people with no police department, pays to have Cheshire County deputy sheriff's provide police coverage, Foote said.
Meanwhile, state police often remain the only law enforcers in rural areas where many small towns have no police force of their own, Sweeney said.
"A lot of the smaller communities rely on state police heavily for their help. You can certainly see it in the North Country. They do a great job. The communities are pleased and, let's face it, may not be able to afford any more than that," said Peter Morency, Berlin police chief and president of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police.
Link to article:
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Towns+tea
Publius: Article Submission:
Towns Merge Police Departments
Why not Atkinson & Plaistow?
Manchester Union Leader
TOWNS TEAM UP FOR POLICE PROTECTION
By KATHRYN MARCHOCKI
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Monday, May. 26, 2008
The small, southern New Hampshire towns of Greenville and Temple broke barriers when they forged a new jointly run police department three years ago.
The concept has been such a hit in terms of efficiency, savings, and retaining high-quality officers that the towns recently renewed their agreement for five years and caught the eye of other communities exploring regional police services, local officials said.
"For us, it's been fantastic," Temple-Greenville Police Chief James H. McTague said.
"I'm not saying a merger is for everyone. But based on our experience, it was the best thing that either town could have done," he added.
Still, McTague admits convincing the two towns to give up their separate police departments and create a joint new one was a hard sell.
Merging police forces -- or fire departments and road agents for that matter -- strikes at the heart of New Hampshire's precious local control credo. But Yankee thrift can be equally compelling and seems to be driving the latest cluster of communities considering a shared force.
"With costs and everything today, you've got to say, 'Okay, how do we get the most bang for the buck?' We've got to look at every option," Antrim Town Administrator Bill Prokop said.
Antrim recently joined with Deering, Bennington and Hancock -- all communities of less than 2,700 tucked in the northwestern corner of Hillsborough County -- to explore a regional police force. The recent departure of Antrim's police chief provided the opportunity to revisit the issue.
"We're always trying to cut or maintain costs and improve services," especially in an era of rising fuel, health insurance and retirement costs, Antrim Selectmen Chairman Michael D. Genest said.
McTague predicts other communities will give regionalization a serious look given the savings it offers.
Greenville shaved $115,000 from its police budget and Temple $46,000 during the first year their towns merged forces, he said.
A joint force also solved problems that towns struggled with individually. Temple no longer had to build a police station to replace its one-room quarters and got better coverage, while Greenville got a good quality force, McTague explained. And he said better pay staunched the flow of officers leaving to work at other forces just after the towns invested considerable money in training and equipping them.
"I think you are going to find more and more towns say, when their chief retires or move on, that this is something we should consider, especially with the economy and officers (leaving)," McTague said.
"I think more communities are looking at it than they have in the past," agreed Earl M. Sweeney, the state's assistant commissioner of safety.
More towns have seen their populations rise from 300 to 400 people to 1,200 to 1,400 -- large enough to have more crime and collisions, but not big enough to field their own full-time police departments, he said.
"We've got some of these communities at the awkward stage that they are not quite large enough to have a police department, but they have enough business that the citizens want a little more protection. Some of these small communities might be able to band together and create a regional police department," Sweeney added.
And state police, which generally would cover these towns, "are stretched," Sweeney said. There aren't enough troopers to provide 24-hour coverage statewide and response times can be long, he added.
Yankee tradition
Advantages of regional police forces include economies of scale that can allow towns to put more cruisers on the road, provide round-the-clock coverage and even hire a detective to follow up on cases, Sweeney said.
But the hurdles can be significant.
Towns must consider topography, square miles a regional force would cover, response time, and be in the same county and served by the same district court, Sweeney said.
Regional police forces -- while common in other parts of the country -- are rare in New Hampshire.
The state law that allows communities to forge intermunicipal agreements is 31 years old. But the Temple-Greenville Police Department is the only one created under the statute currently in existence.
"It's a New England, Yankee tradition that we like to have control of our own municipal services," Sweeney said. "It's like community policing; everyone likes to have their own police officer."
"It's a New Hampshire thing," Cheshire County Sheriff Richard A. Foote agreed. "People have their own police departments and their police chiefs and that's what the individual towns want .... There is no right or wrong decision."
But James B. Andrews, who wrote and helped pass RSA 53-A, said the intermunicipal agreement law enables towns to govern themselves more efficiently, less expensively and with more professional help.
"I can't understand why there hasn't been a lot of them. I don't think that's progressive," added Andrews, executive director of the New Hampshire Local Government Center Inc., a nonprofit group that represents cities and towns.
"Maybe there is the thought that, 'Oh, we're going to lose some control,' which isn't the case. It makes financial sense and it makes good government sense," he added.
It's more common for small towns to hire a county sheriff's department or larger, neighboring community to provide police coverage for a fee than to create shared police departments, state and county officials said. For instance, Gilsum, a town of about 740 people with no police department, pays to have Cheshire County deputy sheriff's provide police coverage, Foote said.
Meanwhile, state police often remain the only law enforcers in rural areas where many small towns have no police force of their own, Sweeney said.
"A lot of the smaller communities rely on state police heavily for their help. You can certainly see it in the North Country. They do a great job. The communities are pleased and, let's face it, may not be able to afford any more than that," said Peter Morency, Berlin police chief and president of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police.
Link to article:
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Towns+tea
Tuesday, May 27
Conflicts of Interest- Redux
It has come to this blog's attention that for the first time we have a selectman, who is not only the ex-officio liason to the planning board, but also vie-chair of the ZBA!
Now for those who don't know, the ZBA is supposed to remain independent due to their legal ability to overrule decisions of both the planning board, and the selectmen.
It would appear to be a clear conflict of interest for one man to sit on all three, even if he recused himself. When elected, selectman Friel should have resigned from the ZBA. Failing that ZBA chairman, Polito, should have recognized the inherent conflict and asked him to resign, but, of course, this IS Atkinson, and neither of those circumstances happened.
So Let's take a recent case history here in town; The selectmen decide to violate conservation deed restrictions on town owned land, by not just allowing, but advocating for a business owner to put up an enormous sign, on town property. The selectmen go to the planning board and speak on the business owners behalf. The case goes to the ZBA, where the vice-chair, is someon who has had a hand in this decision already at two stages of the process, would this contaminate the fairness of the process? Yup!
But as the selectmen have told you for the last 5 years, no one in town cares about conflict of interest, but for two people with vendettas. Dont expect the conflict of interest committee to do anything, they have been looking the other way for years.
Now for those who don't know, the ZBA is supposed to remain independent due to their legal ability to overrule decisions of both the planning board, and the selectmen.
It would appear to be a clear conflict of interest for one man to sit on all three, even if he recused himself. When elected, selectman Friel should have resigned from the ZBA. Failing that ZBA chairman, Polito, should have recognized the inherent conflict and asked him to resign, but, of course, this IS Atkinson, and neither of those circumstances happened.
So Let's take a recent case history here in town; The selectmen decide to violate conservation deed restrictions on town owned land, by not just allowing, but advocating for a business owner to put up an enormous sign, on town property. The selectmen go to the planning board and speak on the business owners behalf. The case goes to the ZBA, where the vice-chair, is someon who has had a hand in this decision already at two stages of the process, would this contaminate the fairness of the process? Yup!
But as the selectmen have told you for the last 5 years, no one in town cares about conflict of interest, but for two people with vendettas. Dont expect the conflict of interest committee to do anything, they have been looking the other way for years.
Sunday, May 25
Town offers settlement in Federal Civil Right Suit!
This Is the case that for the last three years Phil and Jack have been saying had no merit, that Frank said was "a million dollar joke".
The really unbelievable thing here is that in New Hampshire, which is notorious for not giving monetary judgements unless ACTUAL MONEY was lost, they still felt the need to settle, with a $30,000 payment.
Article Submission, re today's Eagle Tribune:
Town, resident settle lawsuit for $30,000
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
CONCORD — Atkinson resident Carol Grant has settled a lawsuit against the town and four officials for $30,000.
Grant, who has often been at odds with town officials, claimed Selectman Fred Childs, police Chief Philip Consentino, former Selectman Jack Sapia and Moderator Frank Polito damaged her reputation during selectmen's meetings in 2005.
After mediation, Grant was awarded $30,000 and the promise that her name won't be mentioned at future selectmen's meetings unless she is present, she said.
In exchange, Grant can't bring the same claims against the town or those officials, according to Garry Lane, the town's attorney. Both parties agreed to work out future problems — outside of court, he said.
The case, which was filed in Superior Court in January 2007, was immediately moved to U.S. District Court because Grant alleged the defendants infringed on her constitutional rights.
"There's so much back-and-forth hostility," Lane said. "We needed something to kind of break that cycle, a way to move forward."
Grant sued for "malice, slander and libel with intentional infliction of harm" for officials' comments during meetings about the Vietnam Memorial Honor Rolls.
She said yesterday she's glad the case is over and she doesn't have to worry about her name "being raked over the coals" at selectmen's meetings anymore. Grant said she didn't seek a specific amount of money.
"It wouldn't matter whether they paid one penny or $1 million, just the fact that they had to pay something was satisfaction enough," she said. "I'm not out to make money off the town, but I wanted them to pay something as an acknowledgement that they'd engaged in wrongdoing."
Lane said there was no admission of liability in the case. Insurance companies for the town and the four individuals paid the $30,000. Everyone apologized and agreed to mediate any future problems, instead of seeking litigation, he said.
"We'll talk about issues, but not make nasty comments about each other," Lane said.
Selectmen Chairman Paul Sullivan said yesterday the case was over and a copy of the settlement is available at Town Hall.
"We did finally find mutual grounds to settle," he said.
There is still one civil lawsuit pending against the town, according to Sullivan. Former Budget Committee member Mark Acciard filed a $3 million lawsuit against the town, Consentino, Sapia and Polito in Superior Court in January. He's seeking compensation for damages, lost wages and loss of reputation for incidents that occurred between 2004 and December 2007.
Acciard is claiming the town didn't protect his reputation during public meetings.
Another chapter in the Sapia, Consentino, Childs as selectmen story closes.
The really unbelievable thing here is that in New Hampshire, which is notorious for not giving monetary judgements unless ACTUAL MONEY was lost, they still felt the need to settle, with a $30,000 payment.
Article Submission, re today's Eagle Tribune:
Town, resident settle lawsuit for $30,000
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
CONCORD — Atkinson resident Carol Grant has settled a lawsuit against the town and four officials for $30,000.
Grant, who has often been at odds with town officials, claimed Selectman Fred Childs, police Chief Philip Consentino, former Selectman Jack Sapia and Moderator Frank Polito damaged her reputation during selectmen's meetings in 2005.
After mediation, Grant was awarded $30,000 and the promise that her name won't be mentioned at future selectmen's meetings unless she is present, she said.
In exchange, Grant can't bring the same claims against the town or those officials, according to Garry Lane, the town's attorney. Both parties agreed to work out future problems — outside of court, he said.
The case, which was filed in Superior Court in January 2007, was immediately moved to U.S. District Court because Grant alleged the defendants infringed on her constitutional rights.
"There's so much back-and-forth hostility," Lane said. "We needed something to kind of break that cycle, a way to move forward."
Grant sued for "malice, slander and libel with intentional infliction of harm" for officials' comments during meetings about the Vietnam Memorial Honor Rolls.
She said yesterday she's glad the case is over and she doesn't have to worry about her name "being raked over the coals" at selectmen's meetings anymore. Grant said she didn't seek a specific amount of money.
"It wouldn't matter whether they paid one penny or $1 million, just the fact that they had to pay something was satisfaction enough," she said. "I'm not out to make money off the town, but I wanted them to pay something as an acknowledgement that they'd engaged in wrongdoing."
Lane said there was no admission of liability in the case. Insurance companies for the town and the four individuals paid the $30,000. Everyone apologized and agreed to mediate any future problems, instead of seeking litigation, he said.
"We'll talk about issues, but not make nasty comments about each other," Lane said.
Selectmen Chairman Paul Sullivan said yesterday the case was over and a copy of the settlement is available at Town Hall.
"We did finally find mutual grounds to settle," he said.
There is still one civil lawsuit pending against the town, according to Sullivan. Former Budget Committee member Mark Acciard filed a $3 million lawsuit against the town, Consentino, Sapia and Polito in Superior Court in January. He's seeking compensation for damages, lost wages and loss of reputation for incidents that occurred between 2004 and December 2007.
Acciard is claiming the town didn't protect his reputation during public meetings.
Another chapter in the Sapia, Consentino, Childs as selectmen story closes.
Tuesday, May 20
Monday, May 19
Which do YOU think is the greater crime?...
Attempting to abduct a 10 year old child walking home from school? Or placing fliers on mailboxes?
Evidently, to our police chief, the fliers are the greater crime!
At tonights selectmens meeting chief Consentino commented on WMUR's headline story tonight, that on Thursday last there was an attempted abduction in Atkinson!
We are only NOW hearing about this 4 DAYS after the incident!!! WHY???
Chief Consentino claims it is because he didn't find our about the incident until the end of the duty day on Friday when he was cleaning out his inbox. He stated that by then it was too late to involve the school or the media.
This blog finds it improbable that an incident of this magnitude happens in Atkinson, and the chief of police doesnt even know about it for 27 hours after it happens!
Compare that to chief Consentino's brief self appointed stint as a federal US Postal Service Inspector, where he saw the crime being committed, pulled over the perp, called the USPS inspectors, complained to the postmaster, and reported all of this at a selectmens meeting that night! Yessiree!! Justice is swift when you have previously pissed off our chief law enforcement officer.
Yet when one of our children is in danger from a possible child predator, the story is "well no one told me"!
Another episode in the lives of our Keystone Coppish chief of police.
Evidently, to our police chief, the fliers are the greater crime!
At tonights selectmens meeting chief Consentino commented on WMUR's headline story tonight, that on Thursday last there was an attempted abduction in Atkinson!
We are only NOW hearing about this 4 DAYS after the incident!!! WHY???
Chief Consentino claims it is because he didn't find our about the incident until the end of the duty day on Friday when he was cleaning out his inbox. He stated that by then it was too late to involve the school or the media.
This blog finds it improbable that an incident of this magnitude happens in Atkinson, and the chief of police doesnt even know about it for 27 hours after it happens!
Compare that to chief Consentino's brief self appointed stint as a federal US Postal Service Inspector, where he saw the crime being committed, pulled over the perp, called the USPS inspectors, complained to the postmaster, and reported all of this at a selectmens meeting that night! Yessiree!! Justice is swift when you have previously pissed off our chief law enforcement officer.
Yet when one of our children is in danger from a possible child predator, the story is "well no one told me"!
Another episode in the lives of our Keystone Coppish chief of police.
Sunday, May 18
a Lot of planned action at Tommorrow's Meeting
Well, the selectmen have a lot to do at Monday's meeting;
1.) They have to decide whether or not to spend $28,000 of OUR money on an 11th car for our 5 full time officers.
2.) They have to decide whether or not they are going to reprimand, discipline, or fire Phil over his lack of fiduciary management, misstatements to the board, and outright refusal to follow long established written town policy.
3.) There is an action item on the agenda; "application to contact town counsel" Never seen that before, it will be interesting to hear what that is all about.
Remember this board has reamed Teddy, for much less, than what Phil admitted to last week. The issue is very simple, and not as Phil put it, "what's the difference, you are paying him these days anyway."
The town had an established policy that states that sick days may only be used when you are sick. If you fail to use them in a year, the town, at the end of the year, will buy them back form you for 50% of their value. Like a bonus.
Lt. Baldwin probably did nothing wrong here, because his role was merely to ask for the sick time. It was his dept. heads responsibility to say; "i'm sorry, but town policy precludes me from allowing that. Contrary to what the chief implied, reserve and guard members DO get paid, and very well when they are on their summer camp. As a matter of fact, according to military. com, the difference between Lt. Baldwins Atkinson pay, and his military pay is about $144.00/week. Yet the chief has seen fit to have the taxpayers of Atkinson almost DOUBLE his military pay for the last six years, in contravention of town policy. This has cost the town approximately $6,400.00 in total. Even if Lt. Baldwin never got sick and traded all of his days at the end of the year for that period, the loss to the taxpayers is still $3,200.00
Is this right? Honest? Is this the kind of behavior we want in ANY dept. head?
1.) They have to decide whether or not to spend $28,000 of OUR money on an 11th car for our 5 full time officers.
2.) They have to decide whether or not they are going to reprimand, discipline, or fire Phil over his lack of fiduciary management, misstatements to the board, and outright refusal to follow long established written town policy.
3.) There is an action item on the agenda; "application to contact town counsel" Never seen that before, it will be interesting to hear what that is all about.
Remember this board has reamed Teddy, for much less, than what Phil admitted to last week. The issue is very simple, and not as Phil put it, "what's the difference, you are paying him these days anyway."
The town had an established policy that states that sick days may only be used when you are sick. If you fail to use them in a year, the town, at the end of the year, will buy them back form you for 50% of their value. Like a bonus.
Lt. Baldwin probably did nothing wrong here, because his role was merely to ask for the sick time. It was his dept. heads responsibility to say; "i'm sorry, but town policy precludes me from allowing that. Contrary to what the chief implied, reserve and guard members DO get paid, and very well when they are on their summer camp. As a matter of fact, according to military. com, the difference between Lt. Baldwins Atkinson pay, and his military pay is about $144.00/week. Yet the chief has seen fit to have the taxpayers of Atkinson almost DOUBLE his military pay for the last six years, in contravention of town policy. This has cost the town approximately $6,400.00 in total. Even if Lt. Baldwin never got sick and traded all of his days at the end of the year for that period, the loss to the taxpayers is still $3,200.00
Is this right? Honest? Is this the kind of behavior we want in ANY dept. head?
Thursday, May 15
Atkinson's recent past and ongiong legal woes...
This article is a reprint and intended to inform the public about the true costs of unsupervised employees.
This is intended to be merely informative, and a timeline for those who are uninformed. Below is a listing, along with highlights and results for most of the lawsuits against the town for the last 7 years or so. All of this is public information, and readily obtainable.
Acciard v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all watched this one play out. Here's the quick recap; Acciard brought Consentino up on ethics charges, Court agreed. Consentino violated Order was found in Contempt of Court. Consentino appealed Supreme Court, lost again. We paid for all of this. Consentino and selectmen made many comments at meetings both when Acciard was there, and not. Consentino called his company told them he was being investigated. Consentino sent him a letter from town threatening lawsuit, selectmen pled ignorance, did nothing. Verbal threats, Acciard sued. No resolution yet, still in process.
Federal Court Civil Rights Case- Grant v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all seen the meetings, where this drama played out. Selectmen shouting down Mrs. Grant as she read a statement, interupting her to tell her they don't interupt her, talking derogatorily about her after she has left the room. All of this culminating in the selectmen calling the police to evict Mrs. Grant, her husband and son from Town Hall, because she read a statement that they didn't like! It would have been so easy just to say Thank you, and goodbye, but no, that is not what our potentates do. This case has already cost the town $$$$$ in legal costs, and there are rumors floating around town of a settlement but this blog does not have confirmation or details, but watch out, when we do.
Petition to remove Childs and Sapia from office for violating their oaths of office. Allegations included improper use of force, selectmens refusal to deal publicly with elderly affairs in an attempt to circumvent Acciard's Court Order, the selectmens usurpation of the Library Trustees authority, the selectmen's purchase of an SUV without a vote. Sapia and Childs vote to pay Consentino's personal legal costs! Consentino was not on trial he was merely a witness who thought he needed legal advice, which was probably true in light of the fact that he claimed 5th ammendment protection from SELF-INCRIMINATION 31 TIMES IN A ROW! You can't claim protection from self- incrimination, unless you've COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE INCRIMINATED IN! However this was not the taxpayers responsibility to pay. Mrs. Grant represented herself,and failed to remove them.
Vietnam Honor Roll panel committee et al. v. Town of Atkinson, We all know the issues, we all know the selectmen refused to follow the 2005 town meeting vote, resulted in mediation agreement, rescinded by town wide vote in 2007.
Frank Polito v. Town of Atkinson, THIS ONE IS A BEAUT!!! Our selectmen did not like Mr. Boyle's offer to the fire chief of live hydrants, in exchange for requiring him to lay a 12' wide paved path with a 90 degree bend in it through the woods linking Winslow dr. to Woodlawn dr., They evidently got our town moderator to sue the town(after town counsel told them that they could not sue the town, as they represent the town) to FORCE Mr. Boyle to lay the path after he had already given the hydrant. Mr. Polito represented himself, and the court threw the case out for lack of standing! They said that as he lived three miles away from the site, it would not affect him, therefore he had no standing to sue. Still cost the town money, though.
Mark Acciard v. Phil Consentino Petition for injunctive relief; (3 cases in one, initial case+ contempt case+ Phil Supreme court appeal) Acciard filed this case asking the court to review the conflict of interest committee's decision that there was no conflict in a selectmen who is also police chief, deciding police issues. Court sided with Acciard, issued Court Order, directing Phil to recuse himself from any discussions of police or elderly affairs business. Phil continued to deal with these issues, Acciard brought him up on charges of contempt. Court issued contempt order, saying that if he continued to defy the court he could be placed in jail. Phil appealed to the Supreme Court(at taxpayer expense) and lost again. Acciard represented himself, and won 3 out of 3. Think about that for a moment, the Town's chief law enforcement officer found in contempt of court for willfully violating a Court Order!
William Baldwin v. Town of Atkinson, Now Lt. Baldwin sued the town because he didn't feel he was being promoted to Lt. fast enough. Claimed to have a contract guaranteeing him the Lt. spot, in reality it guaranteed consideration for the Lt. spot. It claimed Town had not paid tuition assistance, when the Town had cancelled check to prove otherwise. Case settled for nominal sum to avoid the cost of litigation.
William Baldwin had a second issue that almost erupted into a legal matter, and that was over his town pay when he was deployed to Boston, then Kuwait for the U.S.C.G. You can refer to the selectmen's minutes from for May 19, 2003, and you will see what I mean;
What hapenned was Baldwin was called up to active duty. Selectmen Boyle made a motion to advance him $5,900 to cover the difference between his military pay and his Sgt. Pay with the PD. The board asked Sgt. Baldwin to furnish his military Leave and Earnings statement, so that they could reconcile accounts. He refused, instead he furnished a commanders base pay letter, which only listed base pay, leaving out all his entitlements. This listed his pay as something on the order of $2,400/mo. when he was ACTUALLY receiving approx. $4,500/ mo. Chief Consentino was insistent that Sgt. Baldwin get the $511.51 per WEEK diff. claimed in the letter. The Board finally ordered Sgt. Baldwin to either give them the LES or return the $5,900 advance. The LES showed a difference of approx. $450./mo. The advance the Board gave him would have covered him for 14 months! There were 8 stories in the Eagle-Tribune during this time, about how the board was "nickle and diming" him, and how his wife and family were sufferring. No mention of the fact that for the first 3 months of his deployment he was stationed in Boston and able to travel home. No mention of his and Consentino's efforts to get him an extra $2,000/mo. over and above what he deserved.
Does this sound honest and forthright to you? Also check out the minutes of June 9, 2003.
Officer Gary Lorden & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This complaint was before the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, alleging improper conduct, retribution, and threats from the police chief towards officer Lorden. Case was settled, and officer Lorden received compensation for his losses.
Officer Micheal Rivera & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This case was also before the PELRB. Oficer Rivera was one of the organizers of the Union. After Chief was notified Officer rivera received numerous write ups, notably for failing to meet his quota of tickets while on 12am -8am shift. (officer Baldwin even testified that there has never been a quota). He was then notified that he would not receive his permanent status with Atkinson PD. He lsot because he was only probationary, but then won on appeal, case was settled, money was paid.
And them there is the Dale Childs matter; Mrs. Childs filed a complaint with Police standards and training, complaining that Phil worked too many hours to be part-time, and he was not qualified to be full-time. Phil sent officer Anderson over to Mrs. Childs house to take photos of the Hampstead Animal Control Car in her driveway. He then sent a Letter, On official staionary, signed "Chief Phil v. Consentino", to the Hampstead Board of Selectmen about Mrs. Childs, ciritcal of her use of the vehicle. When this was written about in the Eagle-Tribune, he claimed he was investigating her as "Phil Consentino, Resident, not Phil Consentino, Chief", but he signed the official letter, Chief.
Does anyone see a common thread here?
All of these cases happened allegedly due to official misconduct on the part of the Chief.
All cost this town money in legal fees, court costs, settlement costs, increased insurance premiums, and more.
It is time to end this madness. How much should one man's ego cost the town?
This is intended to be merely informative, and a timeline for those who are uninformed. Below is a listing, along with highlights and results for most of the lawsuits against the town for the last 7 years or so. All of this is public information, and readily obtainable.
Acciard v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all watched this one play out. Here's the quick recap; Acciard brought Consentino up on ethics charges, Court agreed. Consentino violated Order was found in Contempt of Court. Consentino appealed Supreme Court, lost again. We paid for all of this. Consentino and selectmen made many comments at meetings both when Acciard was there, and not. Consentino called his company told them he was being investigated. Consentino sent him a letter from town threatening lawsuit, selectmen pled ignorance, did nothing. Verbal threats, Acciard sued. No resolution yet, still in process.
Federal Court Civil Rights Case- Grant v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all seen the meetings, where this drama played out. Selectmen shouting down Mrs. Grant as she read a statement, interupting her to tell her they don't interupt her, talking derogatorily about her after she has left the room. All of this culminating in the selectmen calling the police to evict Mrs. Grant, her husband and son from Town Hall, because she read a statement that they didn't like! It would have been so easy just to say Thank you, and goodbye, but no, that is not what our potentates do. This case has already cost the town $$$$$ in legal costs, and there are rumors floating around town of a settlement but this blog does not have confirmation or details, but watch out, when we do.
Petition to remove Childs and Sapia from office for violating their oaths of office. Allegations included improper use of force, selectmens refusal to deal publicly with elderly affairs in an attempt to circumvent Acciard's Court Order, the selectmens usurpation of the Library Trustees authority, the selectmen's purchase of an SUV without a vote. Sapia and Childs vote to pay Consentino's personal legal costs! Consentino was not on trial he was merely a witness who thought he needed legal advice, which was probably true in light of the fact that he claimed 5th ammendment protection from SELF-INCRIMINATION 31 TIMES IN A ROW! You can't claim protection from self- incrimination, unless you've COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE INCRIMINATED IN! However this was not the taxpayers responsibility to pay. Mrs. Grant represented herself,and failed to remove them.
Vietnam Honor Roll panel committee et al. v. Town of Atkinson, We all know the issues, we all know the selectmen refused to follow the 2005 town meeting vote, resulted in mediation agreement, rescinded by town wide vote in 2007.
Frank Polito v. Town of Atkinson, THIS ONE IS A BEAUT!!! Our selectmen did not like Mr. Boyle's offer to the fire chief of live hydrants, in exchange for requiring him to lay a 12' wide paved path with a 90 degree bend in it through the woods linking Winslow dr. to Woodlawn dr., They evidently got our town moderator to sue the town(after town counsel told them that they could not sue the town, as they represent the town) to FORCE Mr. Boyle to lay the path after he had already given the hydrant. Mr. Polito represented himself, and the court threw the case out for lack of standing! They said that as he lived three miles away from the site, it would not affect him, therefore he had no standing to sue. Still cost the town money, though.
Mark Acciard v. Phil Consentino Petition for injunctive relief; (3 cases in one, initial case+ contempt case+ Phil Supreme court appeal) Acciard filed this case asking the court to review the conflict of interest committee's decision that there was no conflict in a selectmen who is also police chief, deciding police issues. Court sided with Acciard, issued Court Order, directing Phil to recuse himself from any discussions of police or elderly affairs business. Phil continued to deal with these issues, Acciard brought him up on charges of contempt. Court issued contempt order, saying that if he continued to defy the court he could be placed in jail. Phil appealed to the Supreme Court(at taxpayer expense) and lost again. Acciard represented himself, and won 3 out of 3. Think about that for a moment, the Town's chief law enforcement officer found in contempt of court for willfully violating a Court Order!
William Baldwin v. Town of Atkinson, Now Lt. Baldwin sued the town because he didn't feel he was being promoted to Lt. fast enough. Claimed to have a contract guaranteeing him the Lt. spot, in reality it guaranteed consideration for the Lt. spot. It claimed Town had not paid tuition assistance, when the Town had cancelled check to prove otherwise. Case settled for nominal sum to avoid the cost of litigation.
William Baldwin had a second issue that almost erupted into a legal matter, and that was over his town pay when he was deployed to Boston, then Kuwait for the U.S.C.G. You can refer to the selectmen's minutes from for May 19, 2003, and you will see what I mean;
What hapenned was Baldwin was called up to active duty. Selectmen Boyle made a motion to advance him $5,900 to cover the difference between his military pay and his Sgt. Pay with the PD. The board asked Sgt. Baldwin to furnish his military Leave and Earnings statement, so that they could reconcile accounts. He refused, instead he furnished a commanders base pay letter, which only listed base pay, leaving out all his entitlements. This listed his pay as something on the order of $2,400/mo. when he was ACTUALLY receiving approx. $4,500/ mo. Chief Consentino was insistent that Sgt. Baldwin get the $511.51 per WEEK diff. claimed in the letter. The Board finally ordered Sgt. Baldwin to either give them the LES or return the $5,900 advance. The LES showed a difference of approx. $450./mo. The advance the Board gave him would have covered him for 14 months! There were 8 stories in the Eagle-Tribune during this time, about how the board was "nickle and diming" him, and how his wife and family were sufferring. No mention of the fact that for the first 3 months of his deployment he was stationed in Boston and able to travel home. No mention of his and Consentino's efforts to get him an extra $2,000/mo. over and above what he deserved.
Does this sound honest and forthright to you? Also check out the minutes of June 9, 2003.
Officer Gary Lorden & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This complaint was before the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, alleging improper conduct, retribution, and threats from the police chief towards officer Lorden. Case was settled, and officer Lorden received compensation for his losses.
Officer Micheal Rivera & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This case was also before the PELRB. Oficer Rivera was one of the organizers of the Union. After Chief was notified Officer rivera received numerous write ups, notably for failing to meet his quota of tickets while on 12am -8am shift. (officer Baldwin even testified that there has never been a quota). He was then notified that he would not receive his permanent status with Atkinson PD. He lsot because he was only probationary, but then won on appeal, case was settled, money was paid.
And them there is the Dale Childs matter; Mrs. Childs filed a complaint with Police standards and training, complaining that Phil worked too many hours to be part-time, and he was not qualified to be full-time. Phil sent officer Anderson over to Mrs. Childs house to take photos of the Hampstead Animal Control Car in her driveway. He then sent a Letter, On official staionary, signed "Chief Phil v. Consentino", to the Hampstead Board of Selectmen about Mrs. Childs, ciritcal of her use of the vehicle. When this was written about in the Eagle-Tribune, he claimed he was investigating her as "Phil Consentino, Resident, not Phil Consentino, Chief", but he signed the official letter, Chief.
Does anyone see a common thread here?
All of these cases happened allegedly due to official misconduct on the part of the Chief.
All cost this town money in legal fees, court costs, settlement costs, increased insurance premiums, and more.
It is time to end this madness. How much should one man's ego cost the town?
Wednesday, May 14
Did the chief admit to falsifying Sick pay vouchers?
The selectmen's workshop on Monday night held many revelations. One was that chief Consentino admitted "for the last 6 years" submitting sick pay vouchers for Lt. Baldwin when he does his Coast Guard Summer Camp, for 2 weeks every summer. This evidently fraudulent document submission troubles many who heard it.
Paul Sullivan read the Town's policy on sick pay, right from the employee handbook. This policy has been in place since chief was a selectmen, and yet he admits ignoring it. The policy is that the Town can not condone people taking sick pay if they are not sick, simple, right? What would happen if in the winter Lt. Baldwin actually did get sick and couldn't come into work? Does anyone believe that his SALARY is going to be docked for that day, because he has no sick time left?
Chief made a very compelling but false case for why his protege needs this time, because "it is not fair for him to not get paid while he is defending the country",
Well, Phil, summer camp is just that "camp"!, Training, meetings, job orientation to teach you everything you forgot since your last "summer camp"!, and he gets PAID VERY WELL FOR THIS!
This is from the pay charts at military.com;
An e-7 with 12 years of service is earning $3,600/mo. in BASE PAY! That does not include entitlements. ie: rations pay, quarters allowance, VHA, COLA, Clothing allowance, separation pay, combat theatre pay(if that is the case). An E-7 with that amount of service, should be earning $2045.00 for that two weeks.
Set that against the $1,169.00/week that Lt. Baldwin makes in Atkinson. And he is leaving our town to go do training, and taking a pay cut of $144.00/week!
BUT NO.... He gets PAID BY THE TOWN FOR THESE TWO WEEKS AS WELL! This is your tax dollars at work.... According to the chief(because he has been signing and submitting these vouchers) He has been getting his $1,169.00 from the town PLUS his $1,022.50 from the military! WOW! WHAT A RACKET! Where I work this would be called FRAUD! and I would be fired if I had the basic level of dishonesty necessary to pull it off, not to mention the arrogance to tell the entire town about it on television!
Our spendthrift police chief also went on and on about how the town screwed the erstwhile Lt. over military pay 4 years ago, leaving the poor destitute Lt. to fight for his compensation. it was ALL False!
Got to http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/ and click on the selectmen's minutes form June 9,2003 if you don't believe me. Here is what happened, you judge for yourself who was right and who was trying to scam the town;
In March or April The Sgt. Baldwin received notice he would be deployed. He asked if the town would do anything for him. Then Selectmen Boyle assured him that the Town would pay the difference between his town pay and his military pay, and that he would not lose any money. That was the honorable and fair thing to do.
Before Sgt. Baldwin was deployed, the Town, at Mr. Boyle's behest, ADVANCED him $5,900.00, or 6 weeks pay so that his family would not suffer. The town directed him to furnish them with a copy of his Military Leave and Earnings Statement, so that they could calculate the difference between the two pay rates. Sgt. Baldwin, instead furnished the town with a commanders base pay letter, which only states his base pay and not all of his allowances, or extra pay. The town again asked for the leave and earnings statement. Sgt. Baldwin refused. Chief Consentino harangued the selectmen week after week, claiming they were "nickle and diming" the Sgt. Again, read the minutes through the summer of 2003, or look in the back issues of the Eagle Tribune for the stories about how his family was destitute, because of the town, most most especially mr.Boyle's lack of compassion.
Here is the issue;
Sgt. Baldwins town pay at the time was approximately $4,228.00/ mo.
Commanders base pay letter showed a base pay letter showed a base pay of only $2,400.00/mo. or so.
The difference that Sgt. Baldwin was in effect trying to obtain, and chief was lobbying for was $511.51/wk. or $2,199.50/mo. See Selectmen's minutes May 19, 2003
When the LES was obtained it showed an ACTUAL DIFFERENCE in pay of only about $450.00/ MONTH!
This means that the chief and the Sgt. were trying to obtain from the town an extra $1,650.00 per month of our tax dollars, again in the private sector this would be called fraud, and would be grounds for firing!
Remember that through all of this the Sgt. was being paid by the military, his $4,500/mo or so, PLUS he had been advanced $5,900.00 from the town.
This frivolous, and dishonest philandering of tax dollars must stop, and it is the job of the selectmen to not only put a stop to it, but to FIRE those who are dishonest enough to do it!
Paul Sullivan read the Town's policy on sick pay, right from the employee handbook. This policy has been in place since chief was a selectmen, and yet he admits ignoring it. The policy is that the Town can not condone people taking sick pay if they are not sick, simple, right? What would happen if in the winter Lt. Baldwin actually did get sick and couldn't come into work? Does anyone believe that his SALARY is going to be docked for that day, because he has no sick time left?
Chief made a very compelling but false case for why his protege needs this time, because "it is not fair for him to not get paid while he is defending the country",
Well, Phil, summer camp is just that "camp"!, Training, meetings, job orientation to teach you everything you forgot since your last "summer camp"!, and he gets PAID VERY WELL FOR THIS!
This is from the pay charts at military.com;
An e-7 with 12 years of service is earning $3,600/mo. in BASE PAY! That does not include entitlements. ie: rations pay, quarters allowance, VHA, COLA, Clothing allowance, separation pay, combat theatre pay(if that is the case). An E-7 with that amount of service, should be earning $2045.00 for that two weeks.
Set that against the $1,169.00/week that Lt. Baldwin makes in Atkinson. And he is leaving our town to go do training, and taking a pay cut of $144.00/week!
BUT NO.... He gets PAID BY THE TOWN FOR THESE TWO WEEKS AS WELL! This is your tax dollars at work.... According to the chief(because he has been signing and submitting these vouchers) He has been getting his $1,169.00 from the town PLUS his $1,022.50 from the military! WOW! WHAT A RACKET! Where I work this would be called FRAUD! and I would be fired if I had the basic level of dishonesty necessary to pull it off, not to mention the arrogance to tell the entire town about it on television!
Our spendthrift police chief also went on and on about how the town screwed the erstwhile Lt. over military pay 4 years ago, leaving the poor destitute Lt. to fight for his compensation. it was ALL False!
Got to http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/ and click on the selectmen's minutes form June 9,2003 if you don't believe me. Here is what happened, you judge for yourself who was right and who was trying to scam the town;
In March or April The Sgt. Baldwin received notice he would be deployed. He asked if the town would do anything for him. Then Selectmen Boyle assured him that the Town would pay the difference between his town pay and his military pay, and that he would not lose any money. That was the honorable and fair thing to do.
Before Sgt. Baldwin was deployed, the Town, at Mr. Boyle's behest, ADVANCED him $5,900.00, or 6 weeks pay so that his family would not suffer. The town directed him to furnish them with a copy of his Military Leave and Earnings Statement, so that they could calculate the difference between the two pay rates. Sgt. Baldwin, instead furnished the town with a commanders base pay letter, which only states his base pay and not all of his allowances, or extra pay. The town again asked for the leave and earnings statement. Sgt. Baldwin refused. Chief Consentino harangued the selectmen week after week, claiming they were "nickle and diming" the Sgt. Again, read the minutes through the summer of 2003, or look in the back issues of the Eagle Tribune for the stories about how his family was destitute, because of the town, most most especially mr.Boyle's lack of compassion.
Here is the issue;
Sgt. Baldwins town pay at the time was approximately $4,228.00/ mo.
Commanders base pay letter showed a base pay letter showed a base pay of only $2,400.00/mo. or so.
The difference that Sgt. Baldwin was in effect trying to obtain, and chief was lobbying for was $511.51/wk. or $2,199.50/mo. See Selectmen's minutes May 19, 2003
When the LES was obtained it showed an ACTUAL DIFFERENCE in pay of only about $450.00/ MONTH!
This means that the chief and the Sgt. were trying to obtain from the town an extra $1,650.00 per month of our tax dollars, again in the private sector this would be called fraud, and would be grounds for firing!
Remember that through all of this the Sgt. was being paid by the military, his $4,500/mo or so, PLUS he had been advanced $5,900.00 from the town.
This frivolous, and dishonest philandering of tax dollars must stop, and it is the job of the selectmen to not only put a stop to it, but to FIRE those who are dishonest enough to do it!
Tuesday, May 13
PLEASURE VEHICLES? BOUGHT BY US? FOR THEM?
Can anyone tell me why We the Taxpayers are buying "pleasure vehicles" for the personal use of the chief of police and his family, and treasured assistants?
These were the chief's own words Monday night.
Can anyone tell me how BOTH the Durango, AND the Mercury get from the chief's driveway at night, to the police station during the day?
How about this one. WHEN did WE authorize Lt. Baldwin to have a take home car, and the chief to have TWO?
HOw about why do we NEED a new vehicle when we already have 10? We have one patrol officer on each shift, and we have 10 vehicles, and why? because our Obersturmfurher has assigned each one a purpose, and, never shall it be used for another! This on is a cruiser! That one is only for Details! This one is only for the detective!, Those three are only for the elderly!
We have 10 vehicles currently, and 6 of them have been acquired since 2005! They are new! when does enough become enough?
No other town have two vehicles for EVERY FULL TIME OFFICER!
Hampstead, which is 40% larger uses $10,000 less in Gas. Why?
Why is no one asking these questions?
Getting these vehicles cheap is only a virtue, if their acquisition saves the town from buying a new vehicle. But no, in Atkinson we get the free vehicles, ANd buy the new ones too. It boggles the mind.
But we are grateful to our chief for finally admitting that he bought two vehicles that are not fit to be police vehicles, so why dont we get rid of those two, and get him his new cruiser, that way we shave the size of the fleet by one vehicle in the process.
But what happened to how those two cars were bought? The Durango was donated by Rockingham Dodge, and we were told by the chief that we NEEDED this as a DARE truck because the old DARE truck was not serviceable, had too many miles, etc. The Mercury, we HAD to buy to replace the 1993 Chrysler that we HAD to buy after the voters turned down a new elderly car. Chief told us that he NEEDED a surveillance vehicle. 6 months later it wasnt being used for surveillance, and it got an elderly sign on the door! He got his elderly car even though the voters said no! When they totalled it, he NEEDED to have it replaced, Now it is not fit to be a police vehicle! MAKE UP YOUR MIND! is it a police vehicle or not?
How about for once we get some honesty out of this subject?
These were the chief's own words Monday night.
Can anyone tell me how BOTH the Durango, AND the Mercury get from the chief's driveway at night, to the police station during the day?
How about this one. WHEN did WE authorize Lt. Baldwin to have a take home car, and the chief to have TWO?
HOw about why do we NEED a new vehicle when we already have 10? We have one patrol officer on each shift, and we have 10 vehicles, and why? because our Obersturmfurher has assigned each one a purpose, and, never shall it be used for another! This on is a cruiser! That one is only for Details! This one is only for the detective!, Those three are only for the elderly!
We have 10 vehicles currently, and 6 of them have been acquired since 2005! They are new! when does enough become enough?
No other town have two vehicles for EVERY FULL TIME OFFICER!
Hampstead, which is 40% larger uses $10,000 less in Gas. Why?
Why is no one asking these questions?
Getting these vehicles cheap is only a virtue, if their acquisition saves the town from buying a new vehicle. But no, in Atkinson we get the free vehicles, ANd buy the new ones too. It boggles the mind.
But we are grateful to our chief for finally admitting that he bought two vehicles that are not fit to be police vehicles, so why dont we get rid of those two, and get him his new cruiser, that way we shave the size of the fleet by one vehicle in the process.
But what happened to how those two cars were bought? The Durango was donated by Rockingham Dodge, and we were told by the chief that we NEEDED this as a DARE truck because the old DARE truck was not serviceable, had too many miles, etc. The Mercury, we HAD to buy to replace the 1993 Chrysler that we HAD to buy after the voters turned down a new elderly car. Chief told us that he NEEDED a surveillance vehicle. 6 months later it wasnt being used for surveillance, and it got an elderly sign on the door! He got his elderly car even though the voters said no! When they totalled it, he NEEDED to have it replaced, Now it is not fit to be a police vehicle! MAKE UP YOUR MIND! is it a police vehicle or not?
How about for once we get some honesty out of this subject?
Monday, May 12
Selectmen Workshop TONIGHT!
One of the topics on this workshop is "police vehicle allocation"!
As many of you know, this subject has been one of contention for 5 years now, ever since chief Consentino started dramatically increasing the size of the police fleet shortly after winning the selectmen's seat.
We currently have 4 fewer officers than we had in 2003, yet we have 4 MORE vehicles! And Our empire building police chief WANTS ANOTHER ONE!
Here is the allocation;
We have TWO elderly affairs taxis
One wheelchair van
The CHIEFS PERSONAL GREEN MERCURY
the CHIEFS PERSONAL DURANGO
The LT's PERSONAL CAR
The DETECTIVE'S PERSONAL CAR(this one he does not take home, the others do!)
ONE SUV(purchased without voter or selectmen input)
THREE Cruisers!
All for the ONE patrol officer on any given shift!
In these days of $3.50/gal. gas, why are the taxpayers of Atkinson paying for the Lt. to have a take home car, he only lives 1/2 a mile from the station! And our chief to have TWO TAKE HOME VEHICLES?
And when did the selectmen AUTHORIZE him to have a SECOND take home vehicle?
And why are we paying for him to use his OFFICIAL car to take his dog grocery shopping?
And why are we paying for our Lt. to take his OFFICIAL vehicle to his part time jobs in Plaistow, Kingston, or Boston?
It appears that our hard earned money is paying the personal gasoline bills of our police administration, WHY SELECTMEN?
As many of you know, this subject has been one of contention for 5 years now, ever since chief Consentino started dramatically increasing the size of the police fleet shortly after winning the selectmen's seat.
We currently have 4 fewer officers than we had in 2003, yet we have 4 MORE vehicles! And Our empire building police chief WANTS ANOTHER ONE!
Here is the allocation;
We have TWO elderly affairs taxis
One wheelchair van
The CHIEFS PERSONAL GREEN MERCURY
the CHIEFS PERSONAL DURANGO
The LT's PERSONAL CAR
The DETECTIVE'S PERSONAL CAR(this one he does not take home, the others do!)
ONE SUV(purchased without voter or selectmen input)
THREE Cruisers!
All for the ONE patrol officer on any given shift!
In these days of $3.50/gal. gas, why are the taxpayers of Atkinson paying for the Lt. to have a take home car, he only lives 1/2 a mile from the station! And our chief to have TWO TAKE HOME VEHICLES?
And when did the selectmen AUTHORIZE him to have a SECOND take home vehicle?
And why are we paying for him to use his OFFICIAL car to take his dog grocery shopping?
And why are we paying for our Lt. to take his OFFICIAL vehicle to his part time jobs in Plaistow, Kingston, or Boston?
It appears that our hard earned money is paying the personal gasoline bills of our police administration, WHY SELECTMEN?
Wednesday, May 7
Public Notice for all fellow Atkinsonians
ATTENTION, ATKINSON RESIDENTS
This Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m. at Dyke Auditorium at Atkinson Academy, there will be a Public Hearing concerning the Hampstead Area Water Company’s (HAWC) application to drill 5 additional bedrock wells in Atkinson so as to pump out and sell AN ADDITIONAL 648,000 GALLONS PER DAY of Atkinson groundwater.
Two of those new wells will go on the grounds of the Atkinson Country Club (which already uses many, many millions of gallons during the summer to water its golf course), while another well will go in the center of town on the island in the wetlands east of Wright Farm Condominiums. Two more wells will go on Settlers Ridge south of the Lexington Commons Condominiums.
The Hampstead Area Water Company already pumps and sells groundwater to 11 towns: Atkinson, Chester, Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem and Sandown.
Almost two-thirds of our Atkinson homes rely soley on private wells while Wright Farm Condominium s and the Commons condominiums each have their own private community well/ water system. Any further drainage and lowering of our ground water table can have disasterous effects on our homes’ and condominiums’ future water supplies and Atkinsonians having adequate water for normal future needs.
Atkinsonians being serviced by HAWC should realize that they also stand to lose from any future water shortage caused by more of Atkinson’s limited water being shipped out to other towns. Salem is right on our eastern border, is already experiencing a water shortage, and has noticed the State about its serious water shortages.
N.H. law requires that our Board of Selectmen hold a public hearing to listen to the comments and feelings of our townspeople before the Board advises the state (DES) on whether the townspeople support or opposes HAWC’s request to put in more wells and pump out and sell for private profit, an additional 648,000 gallons per day of our limited Atkinson ground water.
Please try to attend this important public hearing and express your feelings on HAWC’s application so the selectmen can adequately and accurately represent the townpeople’s position on HAWC’s new application.
This Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m. at Dyke Auditorium at Atkinson Academy, there will be a Public Hearing concerning the Hampstead Area Water Company’s (HAWC) application to drill 5 additional bedrock wells in Atkinson so as to pump out and sell AN ADDITIONAL 648,000 GALLONS PER DAY of Atkinson groundwater.
Two of those new wells will go on the grounds of the Atkinson Country Club (which already uses many, many millions of gallons during the summer to water its golf course), while another well will go in the center of town on the island in the wetlands east of Wright Farm Condominiums. Two more wells will go on Settlers Ridge south of the Lexington Commons Condominiums.
The Hampstead Area Water Company already pumps and sells groundwater to 11 towns: Atkinson, Chester, Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem and Sandown.
Almost two-thirds of our Atkinson homes rely soley on private wells while Wright Farm Condominium s and the Commons condominiums each have their own private community well/ water system. Any further drainage and lowering of our ground water table can have disasterous effects on our homes’ and condominiums’ future water supplies and Atkinsonians having adequate water for normal future needs.
Atkinsonians being serviced by HAWC should realize that they also stand to lose from any future water shortage caused by more of Atkinson’s limited water being shipped out to other towns. Salem is right on our eastern border, is already experiencing a water shortage, and has noticed the State about its serious water shortages.
N.H. law requires that our Board of Selectmen hold a public hearing to listen to the comments and feelings of our townspeople before the Board advises the state (DES) on whether the townspeople support or opposes HAWC’s request to put in more wells and pump out and sell for private profit, an additional 648,000 gallons per day of our limited Atkinson ground water.
Please try to attend this important public hearing and express your feelings on HAWC’s application so the selectmen can adequately and accurately represent the townpeople’s position on HAWC’s new application.
Be Careful What You Scheme For...
This is from the NH Insider website, written by Ed Naile, Director of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.
The poignant side to this is that our state rep, Jim Garrity, serves on the Right to know commission, and our board of selectmen has been actively engaged in circumventing this law for the last four years!
Read on fellow Townspeople...
Here is how the deal works regarding House Bill 1408 which is on the fast track to do two things:
1. Gut RSA 91-A - The Right To Know Law.
2. Become the largest membership drive The Coalition of NH Taxpayers ever had.
Some basics about RSA 91-A:
If you ask for public documents from an unwilling public body they play several cards. One is to delay the handing over of the documents until AFTER they may be helpful to the taxpayer requesting them.
Should you go to court, after weeks or months of asking for documents, they will magically appear the day before the hearing. With a straight face town or school counsel will tell a judge that they have already complied with the law so there is no case to be heard. I have had this happen in court more often than not. It is a standard technique of municipal counsel. Attorney Paul Apple of Upton and Hatfield used this ploy against The Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers in March of 2007. Attorney Matt Upton of the same firm tried this on me in 2005. Attorney Bob Bossie of Manchester used this trick in 1991 against me in Deering regarding bid-rigged bridge plans. It is standard operating procedure.
You have to remember, this is New Hampshire and we have one of the worst superior court systems in the country. It is an official laughing stock of self serving nit wits in black dress up. No brag, just fact. Municipal lawyers know there is no real penalty for hiding documents.
Except.
The dilemma for the newly formed Right to Know Commission which has been trying over the past five years to gut 91-A is, now that since withholding documents is for the most part not a problem, how to allow secret meetings. This is a problem because without the sacred secret meeting, many tax and spend municipal boards could not function the way they do now. Without bid rigging, selecting certain like-minded friends for positions, or cutting deals behind the backs of other people on the board, what fun would it be to hold office?
The Right to Know Commission tried, unsuccessfully, with HB 377 and HB 626 to actually write into the law ways for secret meeting to be held. They had language which said “outside communications” as they refer to them, can be held if someone keeps notes and lets the next meeting know what they were scheming. That blew up in their faces. What if the next meeting is an “outside communication” and the one after that?
Now in HB 1408 they just slide in some new language regarding the much anticipated “Outside Communications.” In a new paragraph, “outside communications” are allowed as long as they do not circumvent the “spirit of the law.”
This is really laughable and sad at the same time.
So now you catch a school board having a secret meeting such as the Strafford School Board did at a restaurant named Cassidy’s back in March. They met and drafted a letter to the community to support the $11.2 million dollar school that failed before and after this not so secret, secret meeting.
I had their secret e-mail thanking everyone for coming shortly after it was sent. CNHT winds up several of these emails every election cycle and always will. When you hide something from other members of a board they often get cranky and send evidence to the only organization in NH that will help - CNHT.
Here is why the RTKC wants to get “outside communications” in the statute BEFORE any language about penalties is adopted.
Say we catch, as we surely will, a school board meeting about, say, a certain engineer to hire for a new addition. They hold the meeting at “Cassidy’s” again and get caught by another potential bidder. All they have to do is say they had no idea they were “circumventing the spirit of the law.” A taxpayer bringing the case would have to prove otherwise, such as an admission, or letter saying “let’s circumvent the spirit of the law.” This is next to impossible.
If you think this is not going to happen then you have only to wait.
It will not be long.
But there is a new way to punish “outside communications” and it will be “outside the box” not in court.
Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 09:48AM by Registered CommenterEd Naile
The poignant side to this is that our state rep, Jim Garrity, serves on the Right to know commission, and our board of selectmen has been actively engaged in circumventing this law for the last four years!
Read on fellow Townspeople...
Here is how the deal works regarding House Bill 1408 which is on the fast track to do two things:
1. Gut RSA 91-A - The Right To Know Law.
2. Become the largest membership drive The Coalition of NH Taxpayers ever had.
Some basics about RSA 91-A:
If you ask for public documents from an unwilling public body they play several cards. One is to delay the handing over of the documents until AFTER they may be helpful to the taxpayer requesting them.
Should you go to court, after weeks or months of asking for documents, they will magically appear the day before the hearing. With a straight face town or school counsel will tell a judge that they have already complied with the law so there is no case to be heard. I have had this happen in court more often than not. It is a standard technique of municipal counsel. Attorney Paul Apple of Upton and Hatfield used this ploy against The Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers in March of 2007. Attorney Matt Upton of the same firm tried this on me in 2005. Attorney Bob Bossie of Manchester used this trick in 1991 against me in Deering regarding bid-rigged bridge plans. It is standard operating procedure.
You have to remember, this is New Hampshire and we have one of the worst superior court systems in the country. It is an official laughing stock of self serving nit wits in black dress up. No brag, just fact. Municipal lawyers know there is no real penalty for hiding documents.
Except.
The dilemma for the newly formed Right to Know Commission which has been trying over the past five years to gut 91-A is, now that since withholding documents is for the most part not a problem, how to allow secret meetings. This is a problem because without the sacred secret meeting, many tax and spend municipal boards could not function the way they do now. Without bid rigging, selecting certain like-minded friends for positions, or cutting deals behind the backs of other people on the board, what fun would it be to hold office?
The Right to Know Commission tried, unsuccessfully, with HB 377 and HB 626 to actually write into the law ways for secret meeting to be held. They had language which said “outside communications” as they refer to them, can be held if someone keeps notes and lets the next meeting know what they were scheming. That blew up in their faces. What if the next meeting is an “outside communication” and the one after that?
Now in HB 1408 they just slide in some new language regarding the much anticipated “Outside Communications.” In a new paragraph, “outside communications” are allowed as long as they do not circumvent the “spirit of the law.”
This is really laughable and sad at the same time.
So now you catch a school board having a secret meeting such as the Strafford School Board did at a restaurant named Cassidy’s back in March. They met and drafted a letter to the community to support the $11.2 million dollar school that failed before and after this not so secret, secret meeting.
I had their secret e-mail thanking everyone for coming shortly after it was sent. CNHT winds up several of these emails every election cycle and always will. When you hide something from other members of a board they often get cranky and send evidence to the only organization in NH that will help - CNHT.
Here is why the RTKC wants to get “outside communications” in the statute BEFORE any language about penalties is adopted.
Say we catch, as we surely will, a school board meeting about, say, a certain engineer to hire for a new addition. They hold the meeting at “Cassidy’s” again and get caught by another potential bidder. All they have to do is say they had no idea they were “circumventing the spirit of the law.” A taxpayer bringing the case would have to prove otherwise, such as an admission, or letter saying “let’s circumvent the spirit of the law.” This is next to impossible.
If you think this is not going to happen then you have only to wait.
It will not be long.
But there is a new way to punish “outside communications” and it will be “outside the box” not in court.
Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 09:48AM by Registered CommenterEd Naile
Tuesday, May 6
Here is what went on at selectmen's meeting
Anonymous said...
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
General Blog readers:
This is the presentation that Mr. Gary Brownfield presented to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen last night. It is within the right of all taxpayers to ask, and denied by our past and present board. This is an example of what this board will do to you, if you try to exercise your rights under the law. This is their mode of operation and unless we as taxpayers do something to stop them, your rights will be denied also. (They will force you into court at your expense to enforce your rights)
This is the board of selectmen you voted into office. They cater to “special interest” groups, (attend tomorrow nights public hearing on Mr. Lewis’s water withdrawal from the Atkinson’s aquifer petition to the State) while superceding your rights to stop the withdrawal. (Per special town meeting vote at taxpayers expense last year) This board is trying to subvert your rights. These men are not protecting you rights. It’s time to “take this corruption” out of office.
Your comments please.
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
G.D. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to G.D. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues:
1. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
TAXPAYERS: IT’S OVERDUE TO EJECT THESE MEN FROM OFFICE AND TAKE OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT BACK.
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
General Blog readers:
This is the presentation that Mr. Gary Brownfield presented to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen last night. It is within the right of all taxpayers to ask, and denied by our past and present board. This is an example of what this board will do to you, if you try to exercise your rights under the law. This is their mode of operation and unless we as taxpayers do something to stop them, your rights will be denied also. (They will force you into court at your expense to enforce your rights)
This is the board of selectmen you voted into office. They cater to “special interest” groups, (attend tomorrow nights public hearing on Mr. Lewis’s water withdrawal from the Atkinson’s aquifer petition to the State) while superceding your rights to stop the withdrawal. (Per special town meeting vote at taxpayers expense last year) This board is trying to subvert your rights. These men are not protecting you rights. It’s time to “take this corruption” out of office.
Your comments please.
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
G.D. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to G.D. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues:
1. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
TAXPAYERS: IT’S OVERDUE TO EJECT THESE MEN FROM OFFICE AND TAKE OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT BACK.
Selectmen... The Truth will set you free!
Paul, simply explain to MR. Brownfield, and the public that a total town- wide re-evaluation will cost the town approximately $200,000. Explain, publicly, that that large an amount can not be covered by either the chief's slush fund, nor the fluff in the budget, and therefore the application will have to go to the Court, as an emergency expenditure.
As far as the right to know information, please remember that the town is supposed to provide this information within 5 days if at all possible. Wouldn't it be simpler if the town just did what it is supposed to without trying to hide things that should be in the public domain?
As far as the right to know information, please remember that the town is supposed to provide this information within 5 days if at all possible. Wouldn't it be simpler if the town just did what it is supposed to without trying to hide things that should be in the public domain?
Saturday, May 3
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
MAcciard said...
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — The Atkinson Police Department lost two of its own this week.
Sgt. Diane Kinney, who had served the town for 35 years, died yesterday morning after a four-year battle with cancer, Chief Philip Consentino said. He said Kinney was in her late 60s.
Department members learned of her death when they returned from the funeral for Rose Ann Masello, a secretarial volunteer, who died of cancer Sunday.
Members of the Police Department have spent the past five months striking a balance between working and supporting Cpl. John Lapham, who is battling leukemia.
Lapham is in a burn unit in a Boston hospital "in his worst condition" since being diagnosed in December, Consentino said.
Those are tough numbers for a 21-member department.
Consentino said Kinney and Masello will be memorialized at the police station. But for now, he and many others are in mourning.
Kinney and Consentino shared quite a history. They worked together before police used portable radios, he said. They would call each other on the telephone when a report came in and go to the scene together. Their friendship went beyond work — they vacationed together and took care of each other, Consentino said.
Although she kept up to date with her officer certification, Kinney worked most recently as a dispatcher. She went through radiation and chemotherapy a number of times in the last four years, but Consentino said she always made her way back to the station.
"She never let anyone know it was that bad," he said.
The same goes for Masello, who always had a smile on her face and had everyone "in stitches," Consentino said. Although Masello was a volunteer, Consentino said she was truly a member of the department and will not be easily replaced.
"She was too young and too energetic," he said.
Masello, 62, began volunteering at the station when she moved to Atkinson in 2005, Lt. William Baldwin said.
"She was wonderful," Baldwin said. "I knew her outside, too, because her son is a good friend. So, it's particularly hard."
While they mourn the loss of Masello and Kinney, department members continue to pray for Lapham, an eight-year veteran of the force.
Shortly after receiving a bone marrow transplant last month, the 39-year-old Lapham developed a rash. The rash quickly turned into second-degree burns all over his body, his father said.
"They don't know what caused it," Stan Lapham said. "He's developed a reaction or a drug interaction or a drug stem cell interaction."
Doctors put John Lapham in an induced coma last week because his pain was so extreme, but took him out of it on Saturday night, Stan Lapham said. He has to be in strict isolation until his skin heals, his father said. He can't have visitors because chemotherapy and radiation compromised his immune system.
Despite the burns, Stan Lapham said, the bone marrow transplant team says the transplant is still working. They expect John Lapham to be in the hospital for months before he can return home to Chester.
Stan Lapham said earlier this week that he heard about Masello and Kinney.
"We pray for them all," he said. "When you get into something, you realize how great this community is. The support we're getting is what keeps my wife and I going."
I knew Sgt. Kinney when I was a kid, and she was a remarkable woman, who deserves our attention.
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — The Atkinson Police Department lost two of its own this week.
Sgt. Diane Kinney, who had served the town for 35 years, died yesterday morning after a four-year battle with cancer, Chief Philip Consentino said. He said Kinney was in her late 60s.
Department members learned of her death when they returned from the funeral for Rose Ann Masello, a secretarial volunteer, who died of cancer Sunday.
Members of the Police Department have spent the past five months striking a balance between working and supporting Cpl. John Lapham, who is battling leukemia.
Lapham is in a burn unit in a Boston hospital "in his worst condition" since being diagnosed in December, Consentino said.
Those are tough numbers for a 21-member department.
Consentino said Kinney and Masello will be memorialized at the police station. But for now, he and many others are in mourning.
Kinney and Consentino shared quite a history. They worked together before police used portable radios, he said. They would call each other on the telephone when a report came in and go to the scene together. Their friendship went beyond work — they vacationed together and took care of each other, Consentino said.
Although she kept up to date with her officer certification, Kinney worked most recently as a dispatcher. She went through radiation and chemotherapy a number of times in the last four years, but Consentino said she always made her way back to the station.
"She never let anyone know it was that bad," he said.
The same goes for Masello, who always had a smile on her face and had everyone "in stitches," Consentino said. Although Masello was a volunteer, Consentino said she was truly a member of the department and will not be easily replaced.
"She was too young and too energetic," he said.
Masello, 62, began volunteering at the station when she moved to Atkinson in 2005, Lt. William Baldwin said.
"She was wonderful," Baldwin said. "I knew her outside, too, because her son is a good friend. So, it's particularly hard."
While they mourn the loss of Masello and Kinney, department members continue to pray for Lapham, an eight-year veteran of the force.
Shortly after receiving a bone marrow transplant last month, the 39-year-old Lapham developed a rash. The rash quickly turned into second-degree burns all over his body, his father said.
"They don't know what caused it," Stan Lapham said. "He's developed a reaction or a drug interaction or a drug stem cell interaction."
Doctors put John Lapham in an induced coma last week because his pain was so extreme, but took him out of it on Saturday night, Stan Lapham said. He has to be in strict isolation until his skin heals, his father said. He can't have visitors because chemotherapy and radiation compromised his immune system.
Despite the burns, Stan Lapham said, the bone marrow transplant team says the transplant is still working. They expect John Lapham to be in the hospital for months before he can return home to Chester.
Stan Lapham said earlier this week that he heard about Masello and Kinney.
"We pray for them all," he said. "When you get into something, you realize how great this community is. The support we're getting is what keeps my wife and I going."
I knew Sgt. Kinney when I was a kid, and she was a remarkable woman, who deserves our attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
