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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
EDITORIAL-
A voice of compassion, an example of fairness and reasonable government.
One who believes in the strength and comfort you, your children and your family can draw from good government leadership.
A person who knows Atkinson is our home -- our most important possession that must be preserved and protected through fair taxes and sound community planning and where our children must be safe to grow to become a new generation of leaders.
One who knows that the citizens of Atkinson are all neighbors with her leadership to be dedicated and responsive to all.
One who believes that when those from Atkinson have served our nation and honors are deserved, those honors must be given.
In Valerie Tobin, we now have a leader we know we can entrust with these responsibilities because they are part of her character.
It is our honor to endorse Valerie for election to Atkinson’s Board of Selectmen.
Just a note for those who wish to count the deer.
In January 08 this blog had 16,000 hits and 1,500 unique visitors (for the month).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
EDITORIAL-
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ." [TP, 1776]
We take no small measure of umbrage at such a hostile official act against this BLOG’s patron. Therefore, a timely Editorial comment is both appropriate and necessary.
Discussion of Atkinson’s financial direction, from any viewpoint, is fundamental and encouraged and we will always attempt to limit and correct errors.
However, Righteous indignation towards purported error of such inconsequential nature is not appropriate.
The ENTIRE car deal is problematic. If it was caused by poor judgement, improper exercise of authority, neglect or mistake or even specious reasoning, this will never trump the facts that the entire questionable transaction started and ended within a very small circle of confidants.
We find the entire circumstances surrounding the disposition of the police Cruiser highly irregular at the least and the "explanations" somewhat trifling and exhaustive of our intellect.
Mr. Consentino: It’s time to go. Being Chief of Atkinson’s Police Department is NOT a birthright. That is a fabled legend of yesteryear.
Historically in Atkinson, police chief appointments were made "under the hand of the selectmen" for terms of one year at a time, as was also the case in the beginning of Mr. Consentino’s assorted and discontinuous stream of appointments to this position.
Your only remaining credential established on a claim of indispensability has faded.
So time is neigh. Plan a graceful exit, Clean out your desk, Accept the gratitude and tearful sentiments from some. We plan no editorial recriminations. It is time. Thank you for your service, We wish you a long and happy retirement. Bon Voyage.
LETTER
"To All Atkinson Residents,
I am writing to ask for your help. A member of the Atkinson Police Department needs our help. I am here to ask for your help in Corporal John Lapham's fight for his life. As you are aware, John has been diagnosed with Leukemia. He has been once again hospitalized with an infection that is threatening his life. He is one of the bravest people that I have ever met. He has never asked of anything from the residents of the town. Now is our chance to step up and help both him and his family out. As everyone is aware John has been out of work for a few months. His family has been busy helping John to get better. He needs our help, and I am hoping that this town can step up to the plate and help. From the moment that I met John, I have admired him. He does alot, but never asks for anything in return. He has helped so many people in this town. I for one am one of those people. Please help him.
There is a fund set-up in his name at TDBanknorth in Plaistow. Any amount will help John, while he is out of work. It would be great if this town could help ease a burden off his wife.
Thank You
Also if anyone would like to send a card, please address it to:
John Lapham
c/o Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Ctr.
Inpatient mail
75 Francis Street
Boston, MA 02115
United States
Please show Corporal John Lapham, that this community can stand up and show our support to those in need. I for one, miss John and can not wait until he can get better and return to work. Please show him that we support him. "
38 comments:
I'm glad to see that the court system recognizes the problems we have with town government and appointed officials. I hope the BOS thinks about this judgement and moves forward by preventing this type of situation from happening again. They can take steps to ensure that it won't and we all know what those steps are. There is no place for harassment, intimidation, defamation in our town and more people are pushing back in these situations. The town will continue to be held liable when it's representatives act this way and it's unfair for the taxpayers to foot the bill.
I understand that the town's insurance paid to defend Childs, Consentino and Sapia but refused to defend Polito, he had to pay for his own defense and portion of the judgement. I'd like to see a copy of the settlement posted to his site or the Taxpayers site.
How do you feel about paying these lawsuits over and over? I don't like it yet recognize that it is the Chief, et al, who are causing these uproars.
Lets move forward and dismiss them from civic duty, once and for all.
It would be prudent for the BOS to act now, before Mark's case advances. First, deal harshly with these individuals and remove the Chief, then try to settle with Mark. We cannot afford to take a chance on a $3M law suit. The town can't win it because there's too much hard evidence, especially against Consentino.
Isn't funny how the town fathers keep thinking they're right, and they continuously LOSE in court, time after time...
Maybe the rest of this town will start waking up and become part of the solution...
Carol...
So proud of your strength.
Thank you,
An unknown resident.
Isn't it funny that for three years all we have heard from our elected officials, is that it is a shame when selectmen get sued, and this is why no one wants to enter public service, because of frivolous suits like this, and that this was a personal vendetta,
But My question is who got paid? and who did the paying?
If the suit really had no merit, the Town would have gone to trial, won, and pursued Mrs. Grant for reimbursement of Legal fees. But that is not what happened.
I dont think tha amount matters, the fact that the Town had to pay anything, says that these people were wrong!
Thank you again Jack, Phil, Fred, and whoever else was included in this suit!
Polito and the Chief are the same same. They both kept saying they were right and such. And of course, they were so very wrong for what happened. How many loosing law-suits does the town need to have to convince the selectman to remove the chief? How many laws need to be broken? This has such a simple answer, but for some reason, It has become so hard to them.
Atkinson will be such a better place without them. Just think how nice it would be to Question anything without fear of recourse. This is how it should be.
One blogger made such an obvious yet important point, once the Chief is gone, he'll be just another disgruntled resident. Get rid of him!!! The alternative is so much worse.
I hope the BOS does not wait for me to move back to Atkinson, run for and get elected to the BOS to throw Consentino out on his butt.
What is funny is that when I lived there I was one of the kids getting bushed around. As an adult I have no tolerance for for bullies and even less for bullies with badges.
I am amazed that the chief even passed the psychological screening to be barely certified for part time duty. He would never have made the FBI or even the state police.
Sorry Chief, if you did nothing wrong as you have told us so many times, then we would not be paying the victims of your bullying so much of OUR hard earned money!
Maybe we should seek reimbursement from you.
I'm a former Atkinson reisdent who will be relocating back to southern NH this summer (currently living down south), and Atkinson is on the short list.
I've been reading this blog and others from surrounding towns for several months. Most of what I read on these blogs is about the problems and frustrations with small town government. Understandable. And while I am no Pollyanna, I would like to hear opinions about some of the positive things that are happening around town. You know , so I can make a "balanced" decision.
So... should my family and I move back to Atkinson, or run just as fast as we can to another NH small town?
to elizabeth
we moved to atkinson 20+ years ago to raise our children. very smart move. far enough away from cities and in your face pressures and yet close enough to participate. our kids say it's oh so boring.....lol just what we wanted for them.
i highly recommend small town living for young and growing families. if you don't want the drama just stay out of town politics. or better yet jump right in, join and move forward for change.
btw my kids are grown and a wonderful addition to society. i credit us as parents however living in a small town made it that much easier to help them be what they are today.
Elizabeth;
I would still move back to Atkinson if I could afford it. I have not seen anything in Atkinson for less than 2X or current home in MA. Besides, I'm not eager to increase my gas expense by more than $5K a year and climbing.
On the plus side, n the district has not yet cut the music program as most schools in MA have. Only a few of the middle school where we live have a music / band program.
Low crime, not count the crimes committed by the Chief.
And an awesome workout riding a bicycle up Academy ave from the bottom of the hill.
If Atkinson wasn't a great place to live i wouldn't be fighting to make it a even better place to live.
All the ridicule that Mrs. Grant has gone through, and it turns out she was right, at least to some degree.
Chief you should be ashamed of your conduct. No resident should have to go to court to get any town official to do their job, or to stop one from abusing his position to harrass them.
I've lived in Atkinson for almost 20 years and I am disappointed. We don't know what our crime rate is because the Chief does not report it publicly and problems are swept under the rug. We have had years of drug problems in our neighborhood and the cops turn a blind eye to it. The Chief plays social worker and never arrests these people. My taxes are too high and it appears there's truth in what is being reported in this blog about the over assessments. The assessment on my house has been going up every year. Did I know this was against the law? No, this blog brought it to my attention. When assessments are too high, the reported tax rate is artificially low. I think they like it this way. I think the town officials want people to think this town is a better place that it really is. Sure, move back. Accept that we live in police state and the builders are in charge of the capacity and quality of you well water. Don't expect to get anyone to respond to when you can't talk at town meetings or you are limited to 10 minutes when no one else is. Be careful who's political sign goes on your lawn, don't stand up for anything the Chief is opposed to or you will be followed around. No one moves here expecting these things but they are here and from the looks of it, nothing will change.
Article submission:
Full Time Police Chief. Now is the right time.
We need to make the Police Chief's job full time ASAP. He is retiring next year (mandatory) and the town won't be able to get a good replacement if the job is part time. A qualified, experienced person, the best we can find, should be appointed next. If we wait until after he leaves to try to change the job to FT, it will take months to deliberate, vote and make the selection. We should not be putting ourselves in this position. We should make this job FT right away and by the time the Chief leaves we will be able to act. We have to think about what's best for this town. The Chief can remain in some other mutually agreeable capacity in the PD if a change is put in place before he leaves. I'm sure he will respect and support what's best for all of us.
What do you think? Do you want Atkinson to continue with a part time Chief indefinitely? Do you think we can find a great candidate if we are limited to the part time position? Do you think we will only attract the best candidates if we change the position to full time?
I was at the Memorial day ceremonies on the Dow Common, and saw the Chief's Cadillac convertible parked next to the village store, with a "WWII VET" sign in the window.
When did the chief EVER wear the uniform? And why is that sing in the window?
It is a good thing that citizens of Atkinson are suing for slander, abuse, and criminal conduct. The pity is they can hide behind the financial resources of the town and get absolutely FREE LEGAL advice from the Town Attorney. We are paying for their criminal conduct. Get it? Let's get together and start an organization to pursue our criminal officials in a more effective manner. I want to see some JAIL time for these criminals.
The only way the chief could possibly be a WWII vet is if he were in his late 70's or in his 80's. Don't think so. More hubris.
To 12:25 PM
Was the WWII Vet sign a temporary sign in the car window ?
Yes the sign was laid across the windshield
Three or four antique cars had "Vet" signs in the windows to indicate that a veteran was riding in the car.
Instead of trying to simply hurl stones at Consentino, you should have looked closer and you would have seen a veteran on board.
Secondly, I would like to thank the Atkinson Police officers who were blocking traffic and directing people around the center of town while it was closed. They looked sharp in their uniforms and were all very polite and helpful. Those were cops that this town can get behind and be proud of.
Thank you to the Veterans...those who are with us and those who paid the ultimate price so this blog can openly criticize our public officials and enjoy all of our Consititutional freedoms...God Bless.
OMG!! You're correct, he's too young to have been a WWII veteran so to try to pass himself off as a veteran at the Memorial Day parade is deplorable. Does he have any shame at all? I am so insulted by the the Chiefs complete lack of honor.
There was no one in the car, and it was left prominently parked on Maurice ave. Anyone walking by who knew that it was the chiefs car would have thought He was the WWII Vet. I heard that comment many times, during the festivities. Comments such as;
"I didn't know the chief was a WWII Vet"
Carol,
It appears that you were right, and Mr. COnsentino, and Mr. Sapia, who have been talking badly about you at meetings for over two years WERE wrong. I for one, am sorry, I ever believed them. It is a mistake I wont make again.
The chief vehicle comments are childish. He used the car in the parade and there were 4 occupants in it, all vets. I'm not a fan of the chief, but the vehicle comments are simply immature and useless gossip.
Another law broken by the Chief.
It is a federal crime to try to pass one's self off as a war veteran when one is not.
Will the chief be prosecuted for this violation?
An, by the way, why should the taxpayers of Atkinson have to "wait for him to retire?"
Any one of his crimes committed under the color of authority are enough to terminate his employment and disqualify him for any taxpayer pension benefits. Only public employees that do not violate the public trust are allowed to collect pensions. Even in Massachusetts, corrupt cops don't get pensions. Corrupt politicians do, but not cops. (Think Billy Bulger)
To Rich,
There's that fuzzy math again!! Lets see...4 occupants in the Chief's car, including him, all vets, and he's not a vet. It doesn't add up to 4.
I don't want to wait for him to retire, I was just being polite. I'd still like to know if folks want the position to be Full Time or not. We need to move this forward whether the Chief is removed or retired.
Let's face it, the chief is an easy target, and he's brought all of it on himself and has no one to blame but himself.
How often do you hear about Chief Murphy in this forum? Virtually never. Why, because he's acts and behaves as a professional.
If we had a PD chief who behaved that way this forum would be a lot more boring. Lets all pray the blog becomes boring.
The happiest day of my future life will be the day this blog becomes boring. Truth, honesty, normality. Here is a quote that fits here.
"The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public. "
It isn't often that I would defend the Police Chief.....however....
Over the years, during Memorial Day parades, there have been several cars chauffeuring veterans or other dignitaries (I'm thinking of Nat Flanagan). They ARE chauffeured, and it isn't the driver you're applauding, it's the riders. In this case, isn't it possibly that the Chief was just driving a few honored vets?
Sure, it's possible but since no one has offered the expalnation, the smell hangs in the air.
June 2 Eagle Tribune Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor
Settlement admits no wrongdoing by town officials
To the editor:
I am legal counsel to the Town of Atkinson, N.H., and to the individual defendants who were sued in the Carol Grant case. Having read the article in The Eagle-Tribune on May 23 about the recent settlement of the Grant case, I wanted to comment on some misimpressions that the article might create.
First, the article is inaccurate in reporting that Mrs. Grant was "awarded" $30,000. The word "award" legally implies that there was some finding by a judge or jury of wrongdoing. There was no finding of wrongdoing in this case and no "award." As part of an overall settlement to end this expensive litigation one insurer and one risk pool manager agreed, purely as a business matter, with Mrs. Grant to pay her $30,000. That business decision was based on reality that the cost associated with preparing for and mounting a defense culminating in a multi-day jury trial, would likely have cost far more than the settlement paid to Mrs. Grant.
Mrs. Grant insisted that she needed some money because she had incurred expenses in the case (primarily attorney's fees I assume). Although Mrs. Grant is quoted in the article as stating she would not have cared whether she was paid a penny or a million dollars, that is not quite accurate as she turned down much smaller offers and turned down an offer that would have had a pool of money donated to some town project that the defendants and Mrs. Grant could agree upon in lieu of any payment to Mrs. Grant. So, apparently the amount of money and who received it was important to her.
Mrs. Grant also alleges that the payment was an acknowledgement by the defendants that they had committed wrongdoing. In fact, the individual defendants did not have much if any say in whether any money would be paid and they definitely did not admit to any wrongdoing. In fact, just the opposite, the agreement expressly states that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and that, in fact, all wrongdoing is denied. Mrs. Grant has verbally attacked some or all of the defendants in the past and as part of this agreement she (as did the defendants) all agreed that going forward neither party would disparage the other. Thus, for Mrs. Grant to say in the article that the defendants had "engaged in wrongdoing" was improper under the terms of the settlement and I will be writing to her attorney asking him to remind her of her obligations under the agreement.
Further, the defendants believed that they also had potential claims against Mrs. Grant. Mrs. Grant, as part of the settlement apologized in writing to the defendants and they, in turn, apologized to her. The defendants, just as did Mrs. Grant, agreed to release any potential claims that they felt they might have. Mrs. Grant's statement that her name cannot be mentioned in selectmen's meetings unless she is there is also not correct. As part of the agreement, Mrs. Grant agreed that she would not disparage any of the defendants and they, in turn, agreed they would not disparage her. There is no general restriction against talking about her if she is not present. The idea, however, is that the parties, going forward, would focus on issues, not name calling. In short, this settlement is not a victory for either side. Each side got something important and from my perspective, everyone benefits as this litigation is behind us.
As for the Acciard claim, no one should assume that because there was any money paid in the Grant case that money will be paid on any other lawsuit. Every case stands on its own and the defense of that case has just begun.
GARRY R. LANE
Concord, N.H.
Just curious if anyone had any comments on this.
I only know that the person who pays lost!
If the Insurance company, and the risk pool manager were not afraid of getting their case in front of a jury, they would not have settled.
And it would seem to me that if her case was that weak, the town wouldn't be paying the money. Why would you pay if the person suing you can't prove their case?
Maybe the town's attorney has a point, maybe not. But regardless of what he states, I don't understand why our legal council would start playing politics by sending letters to the editor of the local newspaper. I understand their may be follow up or monitoring to the terms and conditions of a settlement. But what purpose does a town attorney have sending letters to editor? Are we paying for this? Even if it is on his own time, did our Selectman sanction the idea? We have enough politicians in this town as it is. No need for town counsel to get involved. His job was done after the settlement was signed as far as I am concerned.
If the settlement was violated sufficiently and the town needed to know about it, then the Selectmen should communicate that to the town at the weekly Selectmen's meeting. NOT through our lawyer via a letter to the editor. He is just feeding into the what the Tribune is trying to accomplish which is generate controversy and sell newspapers. Foolishness.
Serious case of sour grapes sounds like.
With regard to the highly improper and unprofessional Letter to the Editor by the defendants’ lawyer Garry Lane concerning the recent settlement and the Letter’s later submission to the blog, I am now in the un-wanted position of needing to respond.
Lane’s Letter to the Editor is a highly improper, unprofessional, and outrageous attempt to spin and retroactively white-wash the wrongful conduct of the defendants by claiming, after the fact, and after having gotten out of a revealing public trial, that they did nothing wrong.
It’s common knowledge that whenever there is a settlement, there is a boiler-plate face-saving paragraph in all settlement agreements by which defendants always attempt to whitewash their wrongdoing by not admitting wrong-doing since it’s well-understood that by paying the plaintiff a settlement award, that is already admitting wrong-doing and an attempt to avoid confirmation of it by a public trial. Payment of any amount to the plaintiff is considered an admission of guilt.
When you’re guilty of speeding, to avoid trial in court you can either plead guilty and pay the fine or else plead No Lo Contendre and pay the fine. The end result is that you accept and pay the financial punishment for your actions to avoid having to appear in court. This is no different.
Don’t be scammed into believing that the defendants paid the settlement to save legal fees. If they were not found guilty, they could and would have been awarded legal fees. They paid to avoid a public trial’s exposure of all of the wrongdoings stated in the complaint against them.
Since Atty. Lane is now playing games by trying to whitewash the defendant’s guilt, I now deeply regret having let the defendants off the hook by just allowing them to pay me to settle.
I should have proceeded with the trial and publicly exposed them. The public should have had the opportunity to become familiar with the many acts of resident abuse and illegality by my having the public light shone on those actions with a public trial.
Mr. Acciard, don’t make the same mistake. You have them dead to rights. Don’t let them off without confirmation of their misconduct by a trial verdict so that they later can’t again, ridiculously try to claim no wrong-doing.
Because of Atty. Lane’s very self-serving and mis-leading statements to and highly improper involvement with a Letter to the Editor with its appearance also on the blog, all I can do now is what I previously had no intent of doing – of posting the legal filing for the suit (a public document) on the Atkinson Taxpayer’s Association website, and also other filings associated with the case.
After reading the court filings, let the readers make their own decisions concerning wrong-doing or not.
These soon-to-appear postings on the Atkinson Taxpayer’s Association website will simply be “Right To Know” public documents, and will NOT include any personal comments by me.
None of this should have been and would have been necessary except for the self-serving and highly improper attempts by Atty. Lane to keep open the case by retroactively commenting on it and attempting to belatedly white-wash his clients. He should have just left it alone, as he was supposed to do. Unlike him, I was willing to initiate no public comment to the blog or newspaper concerning the individual actions of the defendants until Lane decided to make his improper white-wash comments which now have to be responded to.
Like his clients, Lane doesn’t seem to know when to just keep quiet and let the bad smell of the defendants’ actions just go away. I personally believe he let his miff at having a pro se prevail over him, get in his way.
To correct one of the several false and misleading statements by Lane in his Letter to the Editor, I NEVER sought a monetary settlement to pay for attorney’s fees. That’s totally false. Lane well knows that I didn’t need attorney’s fees since I was pro se and represented myself for 95 % of the suit.
The only reason I sought and accepted a monetary settlement was because it represented the reality and fact of an admission of guilt by the defendants, whether they want to admit it or not, (which, to save face, they don’t want to.)
An additional intent in seeking, allowing and accepting the settlement award was to let the townspeople know that they don’t have to stand for abuse from Atkinson’s public officials – that our public officals can be held accountable for their misconduct. It’s important that town officials and the people know that to avoid resident abuse in the future.
Lane engaged in slander and defamation by innuendo when he falsely inferred that his clients had a potential for claims against me. That’s a lot of barf. That time-discredited ploy of his is known as the rapist blaming his victim or the burglarizing home-invader who kills the homeowners and then blames them for daring to be home when he came to rob the house.
There NEVER were ANY charges against me FOR ANYTHING nor could there ever have been, which is why there never were any. That was another desperate and pathetic last minute ploy at the mediation session when the defendants and their attorney were still trying to avoid accountability for their past actions. Lane’s even innuendo-ing to it in his Letter to the Editor is slander and defamation by innuendo. As an attorney, he should have known better. He doesn’t seem to be familiar with the NH Profession Standards and Code of Conduct for Lawyers which does not tolerate such shabby and unethical tactics.
With regard to his mention of my having turned down a pool of money to be donated to a town projects which the defendants would have a say in -- that was nothing more than a public relations attempt by the defendants to smokescreen the fact that they were having to pay me an award. They wanted to later be able to claim that they never paid me anything and that instead, they, being such "good people", put some money towards a town project. They were so desperate to later be able to try to claim that no money came to me from them because of their wrong-doing. The fact is, that if they really cared about the town or town projects, the town and myself would not have been put through hell for over a year and they wouldn’t have run up astronomical legal bills for the town and its insurance company, with now increased costs of insurance premiums.
Finally, with regard to my not supposed to be mentioned in future selectmen’s meetings in my absence, or disparaged in my presence: The Mediator asked me what was most important to me. I told him a financial settlement as an admission of wrong-doing by the defendants, an apology, and assurances that my good name would never again be disparaged or mentioned at future selectmen’s meetings in my absence and also not be disparaged if I were present. The mediator then left the room and met with the defendants. On his return he assured me that they had agreed that my name would never again be mentioned and disparaged at a selectmen’s meeting in my absence or in my presence. The Mediator assured me of their agreement and I accepted his word. He also assured me that if they showed bad faith and violated the spirit or intent of the agreement, that I could immediately file and the case would be re-opened.
Believe me. I will. If my name is ever again publicly attacked or disparaged by any town official, I will file immediately. I will never again tolerate, even for a minute, any future abuse by town officials. No town resident should have to.
Post a Comment