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?
I will have to say that I believe that your facts are incorrect. The Detectives car is for daily use. Noone takes it home at night. It has never been that way since the car was allocated. Anyone can see it is parked during the evening hours.
ReplyDeleteSecondly there is only one patrol car right now. As everyone knows there was an unfortunate accident and the car was totaled. So right now the officers are using one day time car that runs for 16 hours and one overnight car for 8 hours. The overnight car was originally used for details because of its age. The car is on its last leg, having over 120,000 miles on it. So the department is in need of the replacement car for the officers.
Please get your facts straight before making accusations that are not true.
Correction Anon,
ReplyDeleteDet. Farrar was taking his vehicle home each night until Brian Boyles last year as selectman when he put a stop to that. NOW as, the original post said, it is not taken home at night. Facts were correct.
Second, we have a total of 10 vehicles in that dept. they were all listed in the original post, if, as you contend, there is only two cruisers, where did the 10th vehicle go?
Third, When did the taxpayers authorize THREE take home vehicles?
How does BOTH the Durango, AND the Mercury get from the Consentino home to the police station every day?
Answer; chief drives the Mercury, and someone else, probably officer Consentino must drive the Durango. Question: why are the taxpayers paying for people to get to work?
These are questions that have been being asked unsuccessfully for 5 years, good luck!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes even AFTER the "unfortunate accident" there are 10 vehicles, there were 11 when the new wheelchair van arrived.
There are to many cars now for the force we have now. Plain and simple. In this awfull economy, we need to spend less, not more. Retrofit an existing car if it is that important to have another daily driver. Click my name to go to the Atkinson-Factor, and watch the chiefs answer to "how many cars do you have?"
ReplyDeleteIsn't Lt breaking some law when he uses a town vehicle to drive to personal business, particularly to other jobs in other towns where he also wears the uniform and badge if another town?
ReplyDelete3 jobs plus the guard and school board. He is ripping of the taxpayers of Atkinson because there is no way he can be doing his best for the town when he is exhausted from working so much. But this is Atkinson. He probably uses his shift in Atkinson to catch up on sleep.
I guess I better hope lt never figures out who I am. I might get pulled over for doing the speed limit. That is consider probable cause for acting suspiciously.
I am very concerned about this.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 elder transport vehicles are parked in the lot most days/nights.
Do we need to purchase another vehicle or would it be more prudent to convert an elderly vehicle to a detail cruiser and convert one of the other cars to a patrol cruiser. The chief says the fleet hasnt grown in 4 years, but is it the correct size ? Next Monday selectmen will allow the chief to go ahead with the purchase..
Ps- The chief pretty much said the Durango and Mercury are not good patrol units. Why not get rid of them and the Explorer (which is not used except in bad weather) and use those monies to help offset the new crusier.
I think we would all love a town paid car! It would help us save on gas thats for sure and certainly would not have to worry about the registration fees either. When can I sign up?
ReplyDeleteI have to say anon..I agree with you we need our cruisers to be reliable.
ReplyDeleteAnd i would have to add that if the Lt. is available 24-7 I don't have a problem with him driving his car to others towns.If this is even the case.Thanks
Namekit,
ReplyDeleteWhoever said that the police fleet has not grown in over 4 years was either misinformed, or outright lying!
Remember it was in 2005, that the chief bought the Ford Expedition at a cost to the taxpayers of $30,000, without even an authorizing vote from either the people or the selectmen.
That was an increase. We increased two vehicles in 2003.
If the Lt. is working for another town, he's NOT available 24/7. He can't be serving two masters at the same time. If he's in Plaistow working and Atkinson calls him, he can't leave his Plaistow job. The conclusions is that he doesn't need (and shouldn't be allowed to) to drive an APD car outside of the town unless he's on APD duty.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the sick pay for summer camp?
ReplyDeleteIsn't fraudulent to take Taxpayer money for one purpose, while getting paid for another? Isn't that similar to what police chief Soloman got fired for in Methuen?
And if what Phil said is true about Lt.'s car having 30,000 miles on it when Phil gave it to him, and it only has 60,000 now after 5 years, then why does he need a car at all?
ReplyDeleteTime for another petitioned article to limit the number of cars. The selectmen obviously have too much tax money to waste if they don't cut back on the number of cars at the PD. They'd better not add any.
ReplyDeletePlaistow covers for Atknson ..so what is the problem there..Im really not sure what your problem is with the Lt. but its obvious you have one...I know for a fact if hes doing something in another town he has been pulled away to deal with issues in Atkinson..so that would be how he is avaliable 24-7...
ReplyDeleteOk then. WHAT are we going to do about this? (Don't say nothing).
ReplyDeleteTo Anon @ 5:56
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point, He is driving a taxpayer funded vehicle burning taxpayer funded gas, to travel to his part time jobs OUTSIDE THE TOWN!
In other words he is using his official car for PERSONAL benefit, not TOWN benefit.
Get it?
The Town of Atkinson is held hostage by the Chief of Police. It is truley sad to see. Mr. Consentino is appointed to his position and the Selectmen are the "appointing authority". The Town has never developed a "job description or specified specific written policies" for the Chief's position. The Chief is appointed, NOT elected therefore he is governed by RSA 105:2-a which I have listed for you to review. The Selectmen can ease the Town's pain by developing a "job description and specific written policies" for him to follow. This is your starting place! Write a clear job description and well thoughout set of policies for him to follow and hold him to it.
ReplyDelete105:2-a Police Chiefs; Powers; Dismissal. – Subject to such written formal policies as may be adopted by the appointing authority, each chief of police, superintendent of police, or city marshal of any city or town who is appointed rather than elected, shall have authority to direct and control all employees of his or her department in their normal course of duty and shall be responsible for the efficient and economical use of all department equipment. Such chief, superintendent, or city marshal shall be subject to suspension without pay or dismissal only for cause, and after he or she has been presented with a written specification of the reasons. Upon such suspension or dismissal, he or she shall be entitled to a hearing, on the merits and reasonableness of the action, in superior court in the county in which the municipality is located, provided that he or she petitions the clerk of the superior court for such a hearing within 45 days of his or her suspension or dismissal. The court shall have the power to affirm, modify, or negate such suspension or dismissal, based upon its findings.
Mark -In the meeting last night the chief said the fleet hadnt grown. I think the fleet is too big and we need to reel them in. If you notice the Durango is now back in the Police parking area..
ReplyDeleteThe Mercury should be converted to an elderly car, the 2 elderly cars should be converted back to cruisers (back ups) and the Durango and Explorer should be sold.
Hes not taking his family out to Dinner and the movies in the cruiser.
ReplyDeleteHe's working in the next town over.
Covering for Atkinson.Sorry if I don't have a problem with this. He puts a lot of hours into this town.
gets a lot of flack. Im sick of hearing it!
Atkinson pays Plaistow for this coverage. Akinson pays the Lt. his salary. Plaistow pays the Lt. to work there. Like I said, you can't serve 2 masters, he is NOT working for both towns at the same time. A choice is made and he's one place or another, not both. It's also called double dipping if both are paying you for the same time.
ReplyDeleteThis BOS (like previous boards) break the law constantly. When caught by the taxpayer, they refuse to answer question or lie to get around answering. Please see proof of one example on how they do this at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YPBWB_jDE&feature=related (I just found this on utube)
Atkinson is government by court. No matter what the issue, they dare you to take them to court, rather than do their civic duty.
They will do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want and you can't do a thing about it. They set you up at deliberative session to destroy your citizen petitioned warrant articles. Turn them into nonsense etc. Don't like it? Take them to court. Ha Ha.
Selectmen (and the 10-20 people that really run this town) don't fear you! They have free legal representation (at taxpayer expense) to fight you and hide behind Non-Public sessions, so taxpayers can't get to the truth. Going to court is at your expense and it's a long process. No person in this town has the will, knowledge, desire or time to find the facts, or follow them to conclusion.
So GIVE IT UP ladies and gentlemen...your selectmen are rubbing your nose in it and laughing at you daily. You have to learn to like it. That's all.
Give up the special town meeting and resign yourself to: Lewis taking your water, chief getting his new cruiser (or whatever else he desires), you will pay for a new town hall, tower will become a reality etc. etc. etc..... Because the selectmen have the God Given Right by law to make it so.
Your time would be better spent doing things you have control over. Planting a garden, washing your clothes, mowing your lawn, taking a second or third job so your selectmen can tax your earning away from you. You can't stop them, so take stress out of your life. Your health is too important. Turn your back and let them do to you whatever they want. It's time for all of you to GET REAL! You have no power in this town. Get uses to it and quit complaining. YOU CAN’T WIN. YOU CAN’T FIGHT TOWN HALL OR THE PEOPLE WITHIN.
To the last Anon,
ReplyDeleteI must disagree with you. If it is important to you that your town officials act ethically then it is your responsibility to get either an outside agency or the Court if necessary to direct them to act ethically.
Is it easy? NO! It has cost me time, damage to my name, business, and reputation, but I won! FOUR TIMES!
I asked the Court if the chief could violate the town code of ethics ordinance, and handle police matters from the selectmen's chair. The Court said no!, in no uncertain terms, and told him to knock it off. When he ignored their order and kept doing it, just out of the public eye, the Court found him in CONTEMPT OF COURT! Even then he was too arrogant to accept this and appealed this Order to the NH Supreme Court, At all of OUR EXPENSE, I might add, and even that August body dismissed his case out of hand for lack of standing.
The result; After one and one half years of taxpayer paid legal expenses on his part, and alot of time and money on mine, and a lot of defamatory statements about me at selectmens meetings, The result was FOUR COURT ORDERS directing him to do the right thing! Could all of this been avoided? YUP, he could have acted honorably, in my opinion up front, instead of dragging the town through that for over a year.
At one point he even sued me, only to drop the suit a couple of weeks before trial.
So you see, if you know you are right, and if you are determined, you CAN win!
Whatever your choice you should simply do what is right!
If our town officials did that they wouldn't find themselves in Court so often.
Anyone notice that the meeting minutes posted on the town website for April 28 are a copy of those for April 21, except for the date?
ReplyDeleteThe minutes for April 14 aren't posted at all.
Anyone working down at town hall?