This is the Tower company's rendering of what a tower would look like behind the salt shed in the center of town. This is not hype, or hysterical unfounded objections. This is the actual TOWER Company's Idea of what a 90' tower would look like! Lt. Baldwin is proposing a 180' tower! So the finished product would be DOUBLE THE HEIGHT of this monstrosity!
NOTICE THE PICTURE IN THE TOP RIGHT OF THE BLOG!
Is this what you want in the center of town?
Do we need this in the center of town?
Where is the data or evidence that this monstrosity is absolutely necesary?
Do we know?
Why has this been pushed on us so hard, so fast?
Why was there no communications problem in 2004 when the town was offerred the opportunity to buy the hog hill tower?
We need and deserve the answers to these questions, before we buy. Lets pass the study and get the answers.
BTW, Do the geometry! The salt shed is 24' at it's peak. the doors are 17', this means the picture of the tower is only 80-90' at most! Even at half the proposed height it is an abomination!
Tuesday, February 27
Bureaucratic S.N.A.F.U.! A costly mistake...
Apparently, Folks, We have a lttle problem in town of late. Apparently warrant articles ammended on town floor were printed on the ballot incorrectly. now the ballots have to be re-printed. Furthermore, the absentee ballots have to be re-printed and re-mailed. Now this blog knows not who is responsible, for this fiasco, but the printing of the ballot is the job of the selectmen.
What about the cost? What doe sit cost to reprint the ballot, and the added mailing costs? Why haven't we heard discussion about this at selectmen's meetings? And first and foremost, how are the 19 townspeople currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq going to get their ballots, vote and return them by March 13, only 14 days away?
Whenever a voter has been disenfranchised by a government official it is serious. Who is going to get reprimanded for this? Someone needs to take responsibility for it!
As all of us Veterans know, S.N.A.F.U. is a military acronym for Situation Normal, All F**ked Up!
What about the cost? What doe sit cost to reprint the ballot, and the added mailing costs? Why haven't we heard discussion about this at selectmen's meetings? And first and foremost, how are the 19 townspeople currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq going to get their ballots, vote and return them by March 13, only 14 days away?
Whenever a voter has been disenfranchised by a government official it is serious. Who is going to get reprimanded for this? Someone needs to take responsibility for it!
As all of us Veterans know, S.N.A.F.U. is a military acronym for Situation Normal, All F**ked Up!
Friday, February 23
Candidates Night Redux
Well Candidates night was surely interesting. In our selectmen's race we have three candidates;
Fred Childs, incumbent, town employee
Harold Morse, challenger
Valerie Tobin, challenger
Questioning was started by Mr. Acciard asking Mr. Morse if he would be willing to step aside on planning, ZBA, and inspector appointments over the next three years as he works for Lewis Builders.
To Mr. Morse's credit he answered yes. He described how he has always recused himself from planning board discussions involving Lewis projects, and this is all true. Unfortunately when asked about the school impact fees warrant article, Mr. Morse spoke at length about it, when if he was earnest about stepping aside on these issues he should have then, as the beneficiary of this impact fee waiver is Lewis Builders.
Ms. Tobin was quick to defend her honor when Mr. Childs stated that she and Mr. Morse would have far greater conflicts than he, they being builders. Incredible! Ms. Tobin was quick to point out that she had no ties to any town boards or committees or employees. And all of her business is out of town. There fore she would have no conflicts at all. Mr. Childs restated his thought that as a builder it would be a conflict for her to appoint planning board members and ZBA members, even though she is not building anything in town. Go figure, he sees no conflict in a town employee voting on his own raise, or buying an SUV for his own dept. or signing a voucher to give himself a $1,300.00 "union benefit" but he sees a conflict in someone being a builder even if they dont work in town.
THIS IS CALLED HYPOCRACY!
As to Mr. Childs, He stated his vast experience on town boards and committees, this participation is surely laudable. He stated that the only reason he was found in conflict by the town code of ethics committee, is because he voted on his own raise, and the reason he did that is because they told him the year before that he could do it. That is true, the previous year the code of ethics committee decided not to do their job until forced to, because a couple of the members are good friends with Mr. Childs. After Rockingham Superior Court defined conflict for them in Mr. Consentino's case, they decided to take "a more literal reading of the ordinance" Mr. Smith's words. What Mr. Childs failed to mention is that the vote that got him in trouble came AFTER the Court said dont do it! He STILL didnt get the message.
As to Mr. Childs assertion the "last year the voters didnt know what they were voting for" when voting for Article 21. Guess what, Fred We knew full well. We were sick and tired of the antics of people like yourself who put their own desires ahead of what is best for the town, and ahead of what the voters tell them to do.
In 2005 a majority of the voters said put the honor roll panels in front of the town hall. Fred said NO! and was willing to spend taxpayer dollars to take it to court.
In 2006 a vast majority of voters said we dont want town employees or dept. heads as selectmen. Fred said I want to run anyways.
We need a selectman without a conflict!
We need a selectman who will do the right thing without waiting for a court to tell him what that thing is!
We need a selectman who will put our votes ahead of their own desires!
Fred Childs, incumbent, town employee
Harold Morse, challenger
Valerie Tobin, challenger
Questioning was started by Mr. Acciard asking Mr. Morse if he would be willing to step aside on planning, ZBA, and inspector appointments over the next three years as he works for Lewis Builders.
To Mr. Morse's credit he answered yes. He described how he has always recused himself from planning board discussions involving Lewis projects, and this is all true. Unfortunately when asked about the school impact fees warrant article, Mr. Morse spoke at length about it, when if he was earnest about stepping aside on these issues he should have then, as the beneficiary of this impact fee waiver is Lewis Builders.
Ms. Tobin was quick to defend her honor when Mr. Childs stated that she and Mr. Morse would have far greater conflicts than he, they being builders. Incredible! Ms. Tobin was quick to point out that she had no ties to any town boards or committees or employees. And all of her business is out of town. There fore she would have no conflicts at all. Mr. Childs restated his thought that as a builder it would be a conflict for her to appoint planning board members and ZBA members, even though she is not building anything in town. Go figure, he sees no conflict in a town employee voting on his own raise, or buying an SUV for his own dept. or signing a voucher to give himself a $1,300.00 "union benefit" but he sees a conflict in someone being a builder even if they dont work in town.
THIS IS CALLED HYPOCRACY!
As to Mr. Childs, He stated his vast experience on town boards and committees, this participation is surely laudable. He stated that the only reason he was found in conflict by the town code of ethics committee, is because he voted on his own raise, and the reason he did that is because they told him the year before that he could do it. That is true, the previous year the code of ethics committee decided not to do their job until forced to, because a couple of the members are good friends with Mr. Childs. After Rockingham Superior Court defined conflict for them in Mr. Consentino's case, they decided to take "a more literal reading of the ordinance" Mr. Smith's words. What Mr. Childs failed to mention is that the vote that got him in trouble came AFTER the Court said dont do it! He STILL didnt get the message.
As to Mr. Childs assertion the "last year the voters didnt know what they were voting for" when voting for Article 21. Guess what, Fred We knew full well. We were sick and tired of the antics of people like yourself who put their own desires ahead of what is best for the town, and ahead of what the voters tell them to do.
In 2005 a majority of the voters said put the honor roll panels in front of the town hall. Fred said NO! and was willing to spend taxpayer dollars to take it to court.
In 2006 a vast majority of voters said we dont want town employees or dept. heads as selectmen. Fred said I want to run anyways.
We need a selectman without a conflict!
We need a selectman who will do the right thing without waiting for a court to tell him what that thing is!
We need a selectman who will put our votes ahead of their own desires!
Thursday, February 22
The ZBA had meeting to discuss putting cell antenna on Hog Hill Tower?
According to the Eagle-Tribune today, the ZBA continued a meeting last night to discuss Mariner Tower(the owners of the Hog Hill tower) putting an antenna for T-mobile on the tower. Chairman Polito evidently expressed the view that this would open the door to other cell companies putting devices on the tower.
Am I missing something here?
Didn't BOTH the Chief and Lt. Baldwin tell us at both the budget committee public hearing and Deliberative session that the Hog Hill tower couldn't support the weight of ANY MORE DEVICES?
Weren't we told that the tower was unsuitable to add anything to it because of the weight it was designed to hold, was at max capacity?
That's what Lt. Baldwin said. Now the ZBA is holding meetings to discuss adding to the tower? So Who was lying?
This whole issue stinks like last week's fish!
Am I missing something here?
Didn't BOTH the Chief and Lt. Baldwin tell us at both the budget committee public hearing and Deliberative session that the Hog Hill tower couldn't support the weight of ANY MORE DEVICES?
Weren't we told that the tower was unsuitable to add anything to it because of the weight it was designed to hold, was at max capacity?
That's what Lt. Baldwin said. Now the ZBA is holding meetings to discuss adding to the tower? So Who was lying?
This whole issue stinks like last week's fish!
Regarding our Road Agent
Anonymous said...
Thank U Publius
---------------------------------------------
Puff piece for Ted;
Ted Stewart is the BEST Road Agent this Town of Atkinson has had the service of in many years, perhaps of all time. We have NEVER seen Ted “out of character” and that is a great “character”. Always a hard worker, we have always seen Ted working harder than his assistants. We know he puts substantial effort into his supervisory and planning responsibilities. We always see him at selectmen’s meetings willingly explaining and giving to the public, accountability for his work and responsibilities.And this in spite of the selectmen's sniping at him. He is the hardest working town employee. We have seen him out diggin out culverts and catch basins, himself, when he could contract that work out. He saves the town a ton of money by also having and maintaining his own equipment, the town doesn't pay for that Teddy does.
We have seen many Road Agents for Atkinson. We have fond memories of
his father, Dan, and now his fine son.
We recall Walter Weeks before Dan. Walter was a character in his own right, from days when snow rollers could occasionally be glimpsed in an Agent’s yard. We remember how Walter would always be “out and about” filling pot-holes with great industry on election day. Definitely not a campaign practice needed for Ted as he spends the entire year building our confidence and pride in our roads.
This Blog has considered the other candidate and, although he is a very upstanding citizen of fine character we have found no advantages for Atkinson in his candidacy.
This blog’s management places its editorial recommendation with Mr. “Teddy” Stewart.
February 22, 2007 1:29 PM
Thank U Publius
---------------------------------------------
Puff piece for Ted;
Ted Stewart is the BEST Road Agent this Town of Atkinson has had the service of in many years, perhaps of all time. We have NEVER seen Ted “out of character” and that is a great “character”. Always a hard worker, we have always seen Ted working harder than his assistants. We know he puts substantial effort into his supervisory and planning responsibilities. We always see him at selectmen’s meetings willingly explaining and giving to the public, accountability for his work and responsibilities.And this in spite of the selectmen's sniping at him. He is the hardest working town employee. We have seen him out diggin out culverts and catch basins, himself, when he could contract that work out. He saves the town a ton of money by also having and maintaining his own equipment, the town doesn't pay for that Teddy does.
We have seen many Road Agents for Atkinson. We have fond memories of
his father, Dan, and now his fine son.
We recall Walter Weeks before Dan. Walter was a character in his own right, from days when snow rollers could occasionally be glimpsed in an Agent’s yard. We remember how Walter would always be “out and about” filling pot-holes with great industry on election day. Definitely not a campaign practice needed for Ted as he spends the entire year building our confidence and pride in our roads.
This Blog has considered the other candidate and, although he is a very upstanding citizen of fine character we have found no advantages for Atkinson in his candidacy.
This blog’s management places its editorial recommendation with Mr. “Teddy” Stewart.
February 22, 2007 1:29 PM
Wednesday, February 21
The Two most critical issues on the ballot this year
are the FOUR tower related warrant articles and Article 2007-23, an attempt to overturn last years prohibition on town employees serving on or being ELECTED TO the board of sleectmen or the budget committee.
You have read articles on this blog discussing these two issues, but it cannot be made clear enough.
Last year the voters of Atkinson said OVERWHELMINGLY "We dont want town employees serving as their own bosses"! Makes perfect sense, right? So why are we still debating it?
Because the very same town employees who refused to do it right over the last three years, who refused to step aside when they were in conflict, who COST THE TOWN MONEY DEFENDING ACTIONS THEY KNEW TO BE WRONG, STILL WISH TO HOLD OFFICE!!!
Last years article stated that "town employees, full-time or part-time, or dept. heads are prohibited from serving on, or being elected to, the board of selectmen or the budget committee." Not they can sign up, then abdicate, thereby spoiling the ballot for the other contenders, not they can sign up violating current law in the hopes that their friends will overturn this prohibition. "they can not be elected to" That is pretty clear. But Fred Childs has the arrogance to sign up anyway. Just like when a majority of the voters said to put the honor rolls in front of the town hall, outside the flagpoles, he said NO! I don't like Carol Grant and she will not get her way! Is that what decides town policy? Are our selectmen acting like 5 year old children? YES!!! for three years they have been. It is time it stops!
Let me ask all of you a question....
Could you walk into work today and give yourself a raise? even if you were giving it to all employees, yourself included, would your company allow you to vote on it? The answer is no!
How about this one...
Lets say you were made a director of your company, what would the shareholders say if your FIRST ACT, 8 DAYS AFTER BEING ELECTED WAS TO BUY YOURSELF A NEW SUV, WITHOUT TELLING THE EST OF THE BOARD. Think you would get away with THAT one? the answer is no!
How about 9 months after being elected to the board, do you think the shareholders or the board would put up with you authorizing the payment to yourself of a $1,300.00 "union benefit" even though you are not part of the union, and as management, excluded form the union contract? The answer is you would probably be facing indictment.
But those three hypotheticals, are EXACTLY what our TWO TOWN EMPLOYEE SELECTMEN DID!!!
Why would we want to return to that?
The people of Atkinson deserve honor, integrity, honesty, and openess in their governing body! it's about time we hold these people accountable. Show them they can't get away with this and DEFEAT ARTICLE 2007-23!!!
Now about the tower;
IT IS NOT A CELL TOWER! IT IS A POLICE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER THAT MAY HAVE CELL REPEATERS ON IT! Will this tower solve our communications problem, we don't know, because we have seen no data, just a slick sales presentation from an armed officer who yelled at us for making him answer questions about a $800,000 project. He can't even tell us how much it will cost the town up front, when asked he and selectmen Sapia both said "nothing, not one penny" This is a lie! It took questions from Budget committee chair, Acciard on town floor to get them to admit that it would cost at least $300,00 up front that cost to be re-couped over 10-20 years.
If they can't tell us the truth up front, then they shouldn't get our votes.
We should study it, then present everything to the people and let them decide.
We hope that the voters DEFEAT ARTICLES 2007-04 and 2007-21
We hope that the voters will PASS ARTICLES 2007-22 AND 2007-24
2007-04 changes the zoning to allow a tower in the center of town
2007-21 authorizes a multi-year lease to erect the tower
2007-22 authorizes a study to find out the truth
2007-24 prohibits the selectmen from doing anything until the study is complete
You have read articles on this blog discussing these two issues, but it cannot be made clear enough.
Last year the voters of Atkinson said OVERWHELMINGLY "We dont want town employees serving as their own bosses"! Makes perfect sense, right? So why are we still debating it?
Because the very same town employees who refused to do it right over the last three years, who refused to step aside when they were in conflict, who COST THE TOWN MONEY DEFENDING ACTIONS THEY KNEW TO BE WRONG, STILL WISH TO HOLD OFFICE!!!
Last years article stated that "town employees, full-time or part-time, or dept. heads are prohibited from serving on, or being elected to, the board of selectmen or the budget committee." Not they can sign up, then abdicate, thereby spoiling the ballot for the other contenders, not they can sign up violating current law in the hopes that their friends will overturn this prohibition. "they can not be elected to" That is pretty clear. But Fred Childs has the arrogance to sign up anyway. Just like when a majority of the voters said to put the honor rolls in front of the town hall, outside the flagpoles, he said NO! I don't like Carol Grant and she will not get her way! Is that what decides town policy? Are our selectmen acting like 5 year old children? YES!!! for three years they have been. It is time it stops!
Let me ask all of you a question....
Could you walk into work today and give yourself a raise? even if you were giving it to all employees, yourself included, would your company allow you to vote on it? The answer is no!
How about this one...
Lets say you were made a director of your company, what would the shareholders say if your FIRST ACT, 8 DAYS AFTER BEING ELECTED WAS TO BUY YOURSELF A NEW SUV, WITHOUT TELLING THE EST OF THE BOARD. Think you would get away with THAT one? the answer is no!
How about 9 months after being elected to the board, do you think the shareholders or the board would put up with you authorizing the payment to yourself of a $1,300.00 "union benefit" even though you are not part of the union, and as management, excluded form the union contract? The answer is you would probably be facing indictment.
But those three hypotheticals, are EXACTLY what our TWO TOWN EMPLOYEE SELECTMEN DID!!!
Why would we want to return to that?
The people of Atkinson deserve honor, integrity, honesty, and openess in their governing body! it's about time we hold these people accountable. Show them they can't get away with this and DEFEAT ARTICLE 2007-23!!!
Now about the tower;
IT IS NOT A CELL TOWER! IT IS A POLICE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER THAT MAY HAVE CELL REPEATERS ON IT! Will this tower solve our communications problem, we don't know, because we have seen no data, just a slick sales presentation from an armed officer who yelled at us for making him answer questions about a $800,000 project. He can't even tell us how much it will cost the town up front, when asked he and selectmen Sapia both said "nothing, not one penny" This is a lie! It took questions from Budget committee chair, Acciard on town floor to get them to admit that it would cost at least $300,00 up front that cost to be re-couped over 10-20 years.
If they can't tell us the truth up front, then they shouldn't get our votes.
We should study it, then present everything to the people and let them decide.
We hope that the voters DEFEAT ARTICLES 2007-04 and 2007-21
We hope that the voters will PASS ARTICLES 2007-22 AND 2007-24
2007-04 changes the zoning to allow a tower in the center of town
2007-21 authorizes a multi-year lease to erect the tower
2007-22 authorizes a study to find out the truth
2007-24 prohibits the selectmen from doing anything until the study is complete
Sunday, February 18
Answer to questions about Police Chief Appointment
Welcome to another contributor under the Publius byline.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION Police Chief AppointmentPulius,... ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Police Chief Appointment
Pulius, is it allowable to submit a combined response/Article Submission?
I'd like to respond to questions from Anonymous #12 - 9:49 a.m.-- on "Police Communications Tower Confusion" and at the same time, provide information that residents should know and which hopefully will stimulate resident response and discussion on the topic, which might result in the incoming board of selectmen finally taking responsible action on the matter.
1. No, currently Mr. Consentino holds no legal appointment as Police Chief.
According to appointment records in the Town Clerk's office, Mr. Consentino has not held a legal appointment as Atkinson Police Chief since his last of a couple of appointments expired on May 1, 1999 - ALMOST 8 YEARS AGO!!
He had previously made several attempts to get earlier Boards of Selectmen to give him a permanent appointment as Chief, but those attempts were ALL rejected and refused by those Boards of Selectmen.
2. Yes, there are N.H.laws (RSA's)which state requirements to serve in any police capacity. It would have been ILLEGAL since 1999 for any Selectmen to re-appoint Mr. Consentino as Chief, since the N.H. Legislature had passed RSA 188-F:27 which requires that anyone who wants to serve in any police capacity must meet the NEW N.H. Police Standards for medical, physical, mental, education and training requirements which were adopted and MANDATED by the N.H. Police Standards and Training Council in 1999.
RSA 188-F:27 has no "Grandfather clause" to allow retention of unqualified police personnel who can't and don't meet current state standards.
The current Selectmen were advised of this law AND that Mr. Consentino holds no current legal appointment as Chief, AND finally, that Mr. Consentino can not now be re-appointed as Chief because of not meeting the new and current legal requirements and standards to serve in a police capacity.
The selectmen were also provided 24 examples provided by different town residents of how as Chief, he has abused different residents and displayed temperament incompatible with that expected of a Chief.
Under Mr. Childs's chairmanship, the selectmen ignored and quietly buried that letter, keeping the information about RSA 188 from town residents.
By not enforcing RSA 188-F:27 against Mr. Consentino, they are themselves violating N.H. law.
3. Yes, the "Chief" can be removed. Technically, he doesn't even need to be removed from the position as Chief since NO ONE currently and legally holds the appointment as Chief.
The new Board of Selectmen needs to comply with the Atkinson Town Meeting vote of 1997 which REQUIRES that ANY vacant or new position in Atkinson be PUBLICLY ADVERTISED so that qualified appplicants can apply for the job, with the selectmen then conducting interviews of applicants and FINALLY selecting and appointing for Atkinson, a legally qualifed Police Chief who meets all of the mandated N.H. state standards.
4. Any person, including members of the APD, can, at the expiration of their appointment term, be NOT re-appointed. They don't own the position and are subject to being re-appointed just as selectmen are subject to re-election.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION Police Chief AppointmentPulius,... ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Police Chief Appointment
Pulius, is it allowable to submit a combined response/Article Submission?
I'd like to respond to questions from Anonymous #12 - 9:49 a.m.-- on "Police Communications Tower Confusion" and at the same time, provide information that residents should know and which hopefully will stimulate resident response and discussion on the topic, which might result in the incoming board of selectmen finally taking responsible action on the matter.
1. No, currently Mr. Consentino holds no legal appointment as Police Chief.
According to appointment records in the Town Clerk's office, Mr. Consentino has not held a legal appointment as Atkinson Police Chief since his last of a couple of appointments expired on May 1, 1999 - ALMOST 8 YEARS AGO!!
He had previously made several attempts to get earlier Boards of Selectmen to give him a permanent appointment as Chief, but those attempts were ALL rejected and refused by those Boards of Selectmen.
2. Yes, there are N.H.laws (RSA's)which state requirements to serve in any police capacity. It would have been ILLEGAL since 1999 for any Selectmen to re-appoint Mr. Consentino as Chief, since the N.H. Legislature had passed RSA 188-F:27 which requires that anyone who wants to serve in any police capacity must meet the NEW N.H. Police Standards for medical, physical, mental, education and training requirements which were adopted and MANDATED by the N.H. Police Standards and Training Council in 1999.
RSA 188-F:27 has no "Grandfather clause" to allow retention of unqualified police personnel who can't and don't meet current state standards.
The current Selectmen were advised of this law AND that Mr. Consentino holds no current legal appointment as Chief, AND finally, that Mr. Consentino can not now be re-appointed as Chief because of not meeting the new and current legal requirements and standards to serve in a police capacity.
The selectmen were also provided 24 examples provided by different town residents of how as Chief, he has abused different residents and displayed temperament incompatible with that expected of a Chief.
Under Mr. Childs's chairmanship, the selectmen ignored and quietly buried that letter, keeping the information about RSA 188 from town residents.
By not enforcing RSA 188-F:27 against Mr. Consentino, they are themselves violating N.H. law.
3. Yes, the "Chief" can be removed. Technically, he doesn't even need to be removed from the position as Chief since NO ONE currently and legally holds the appointment as Chief.
The new Board of Selectmen needs to comply with the Atkinson Town Meeting vote of 1997 which REQUIRES that ANY vacant or new position in Atkinson be PUBLICLY ADVERTISED so that qualified appplicants can apply for the job, with the selectmen then conducting interviews of applicants and FINALLY selecting and appointing for Atkinson, a legally qualifed Police Chief who meets all of the mandated N.H. state standards.
4. Any person, including members of the APD, can, at the expiration of their appointment term, be NOT re-appointed. They don't own the position and are subject to being re-appointed just as selectmen are subject to re-election.
Friday, February 16
Plea to defeat Article 2007-23
Welcome to another contributor under the Publius byline.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION:
Discussion of the warrant article to overturn the prohibition on towns employees being selectmen.
There is one very important warrant article on the ballot this year. It is a petition warrant article to overturn last years voter approved warrant article prohibiting town employees from being selectmen.
Look, lets be brutally honest here, none of this would be necesary if the people who are town employees while serving were willing to do the right thing and step aside on matters involving their depts. or town employee matters. But they refused until ordered to, and that has brought us to the point where a clear majority of the voters said NO!!
Unfortunately, the actions of a few have made necesary the restriction on the many. However the current ordinance DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM SERVING! They simply have to do as Mr. Sullivan did and either resign or take a leave of absence from their town jobs to serve.
This is not some great restriction as these employees have told the residents at town meeting. It is the exact same policy, in force in EVERY SCHOOL BOARD IN THE STATE! as well as many towns and cities. This is not depriving the town of 38 years of experience as one town employee said at town meeting, Why wouldn't that town employee offer that experience where it may be helpful, anyway? same with the contact built up over that time, if you are going to use that experience and contacts to help the town you will do it with or without the position.
Please notice that the prime advocates of overturning last years vote are the very same people in a position to benefit from it.
Please look at the difference between 2004-2005 and 2006. There has been a vast difference in the last year, and it will only get better as we purge our governing body of these conflicts.
W have heard so much about RSA 667:9 "specifically allowing" part-time town employees to be selectmen and budget committee members. That is not true, it DOES NOT specifially allow it, it DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES! This is an oversight, an omission, not a PERMISSION!
There is a great body of established law in NH preventing this, as Rockingham Superior Court has noted in it's Order's telling our selectmen to knock it off!
The landmark case law on Conflict of interest in the state of NH is "Littleton v. Taylor" the NH Supreme Court stated that "The common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices, states that one cannot hold two offices where the work of one is subordinate to that of the other, as governmental checks and balances are removed"
I can not state it better. Please defeat Article 23 this year!
Thank you,
Mark Acciard
ARTICLE SUBMISSION:
Discussion of the warrant article to overturn the prohibition on towns employees being selectmen.
There is one very important warrant article on the ballot this year. It is a petition warrant article to overturn last years voter approved warrant article prohibiting town employees from being selectmen.
Look, lets be brutally honest here, none of this would be necesary if the people who are town employees while serving were willing to do the right thing and step aside on matters involving their depts. or town employee matters. But they refused until ordered to, and that has brought us to the point where a clear majority of the voters said NO!!
Unfortunately, the actions of a few have made necesary the restriction on the many. However the current ordinance DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM SERVING! They simply have to do as Mr. Sullivan did and either resign or take a leave of absence from their town jobs to serve.
This is not some great restriction as these employees have told the residents at town meeting. It is the exact same policy, in force in EVERY SCHOOL BOARD IN THE STATE! as well as many towns and cities. This is not depriving the town of 38 years of experience as one town employee said at town meeting, Why wouldn't that town employee offer that experience where it may be helpful, anyway? same with the contact built up over that time, if you are going to use that experience and contacts to help the town you will do it with or without the position.
Please notice that the prime advocates of overturning last years vote are the very same people in a position to benefit from it.
Please look at the difference between 2004-2005 and 2006. There has been a vast difference in the last year, and it will only get better as we purge our governing body of these conflicts.
W have heard so much about RSA 667:9 "specifically allowing" part-time town employees to be selectmen and budget committee members. That is not true, it DOES NOT specifially allow it, it DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES! This is an oversight, an omission, not a PERMISSION!
There is a great body of established law in NH preventing this, as Rockingham Superior Court has noted in it's Order's telling our selectmen to knock it off!
The landmark case law on Conflict of interest in the state of NH is "Littleton v. Taylor" the NH Supreme Court stated that "The common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices, states that one cannot hold two offices where the work of one is subordinate to that of the other, as governmental checks and balances are removed"
I can not state it better. Please defeat Article 23 this year!
Thank you,
Mark Acciard
Thursday, February 15
Questions about the Police Dept.?
Welcome to our newest contributor under the Publius byline.
What do we know about taxpayer money for Atkinson Police Dept. funding?
I read two unnerving blog postings that I would like to confirm the accuracy of:
Can someone please point me to the corroborating meeting minutes or other official document that states the selectman created a full time Lt slot at the cost of $85,000 per year? Please tell me this is not for real. If it is, I wish to apply for this job.
Also, could someone please point me to the meeting minutes that confirm the following posting from anon posted 2/9 at 12:19 PM that reads as follows:
"Last year, the board was responsible for negotiating the union contract with the police union. Who represented the town in the negotiations?
Chief Consentino and Town Administrator McAllister.
The result: The most lucrative contract for the union in town history. For the next three years the officers will get double raises. They will get step increases, AND COLA raises!
OK, I know this is a "life safety issue", but why do we have to pay more than any other town of 7000 people in NH, for the same or less protection?
And why? during the negotiations, the selectmen voted to give the PD administration the same benefits as the union got! Is this a conflict?
You can't be your own boss it is that simple!
And MR. Childs you knew beforehand you couldn't vote on your own raise and you did it anyway!"
---------
I would like to know how accurate these scenarios are. If they are true, I can only say this is an absolute fleecing of the taxpayers and that we need to go to the state level for an investigation.
We should also propose a warrant for 2008 to fund a consulting company to conduct a top to bottom audit/review of the Atkinson PD budget and cost structure and compare it to other towns. How much crime is there, EXACTLY, in this town? How much of a police force do we need, EXACTLY? While I suspect the outcome will be obvious, the voters need to know the facts from an outside, unbiased party and not hear it from the Atkinson PD.
And while I agree there are benefits to having an Elderly affairs organization, the budget should not be controlled by law enforcement officials - nor should law enforcement officials be allowed to collect "donations" for the PD's own discretionary spending. These funds should be under Budget committee control. The appearance of a conflict of interest is dramatic. It appears to be too much of a "Quid pro Quo" situation.
Elderly Affairs should be managed under something like the Rec dept (sending Christmas cards, annual concerts, getting volunteers to drive people to appts, etc.) These are not police duties. The core mission of a Police Dept. is LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT. How many other towns in this state do this? And why do we do it when the town of Salem offers a redundant service? The Salem Caregivers website is available for all to see. They advertise right next to our PD in the Tribune apparently competing for business from the elderly in town.
By the way, what is the town's liability/exposure if an elderly person gets injured during transport in a police vehicle? What insurance coverage is in place for this? I would want to see the policy and hear from the town's insurance agent exactly what the risks/coverage are - I want to hear it from an unbiased party and not the Atkinson PD.
Doesn't our budget committee have authority or oversight over any of this? Have these questions been asked before?
These are reasonable questions that I, an Atkinson taxpayer, want and deserve answers to. THIS IS MY MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT - AND YOURS, AND YOURS, AND YOURS!
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT??????
What do we know about taxpayer money for Atkinson Police Dept. funding?
I read two unnerving blog postings that I would like to confirm the accuracy of:
Can someone please point me to the corroborating meeting minutes or other official document that states the selectman created a full time Lt slot at the cost of $85,000 per year? Please tell me this is not for real. If it is, I wish to apply for this job.
Also, could someone please point me to the meeting minutes that confirm the following posting from anon posted 2/9 at 12:19 PM that reads as follows:
"Last year, the board was responsible for negotiating the union contract with the police union. Who represented the town in the negotiations?
Chief Consentino and Town Administrator McAllister.
The result: The most lucrative contract for the union in town history. For the next three years the officers will get double raises. They will get step increases, AND COLA raises!
OK, I know this is a "life safety issue", but why do we have to pay more than any other town of 7000 people in NH, for the same or less protection?
And why? during the negotiations, the selectmen voted to give the PD administration the same benefits as the union got! Is this a conflict?
You can't be your own boss it is that simple!
And MR. Childs you knew beforehand you couldn't vote on your own raise and you did it anyway!"
---------
I would like to know how accurate these scenarios are. If they are true, I can only say this is an absolute fleecing of the taxpayers and that we need to go to the state level for an investigation.
We should also propose a warrant for 2008 to fund a consulting company to conduct a top to bottom audit/review of the Atkinson PD budget and cost structure and compare it to other towns. How much crime is there, EXACTLY, in this town? How much of a police force do we need, EXACTLY? While I suspect the outcome will be obvious, the voters need to know the facts from an outside, unbiased party and not hear it from the Atkinson PD.
And while I agree there are benefits to having an Elderly affairs organization, the budget should not be controlled by law enforcement officials - nor should law enforcement officials be allowed to collect "donations" for the PD's own discretionary spending. These funds should be under Budget committee control. The appearance of a conflict of interest is dramatic. It appears to be too much of a "Quid pro Quo" situation.
Elderly Affairs should be managed under something like the Rec dept (sending Christmas cards, annual concerts, getting volunteers to drive people to appts, etc.) These are not police duties. The core mission of a Police Dept. is LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT. How many other towns in this state do this? And why do we do it when the town of Salem offers a redundant service? The Salem Caregivers website is available for all to see. They advertise right next to our PD in the Tribune apparently competing for business from the elderly in town.
By the way, what is the town's liability/exposure if an elderly person gets injured during transport in a police vehicle? What insurance coverage is in place for this? I would want to see the policy and hear from the town's insurance agent exactly what the risks/coverage are - I want to hear it from an unbiased party and not the Atkinson PD.
Doesn't our budget committee have authority or oversight over any of this? Have these questions been asked before?
These are reasonable questions that I, an Atkinson taxpayer, want and deserve answers to. THIS IS MY MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT - AND YOURS, AND YOURS, AND YOURS!
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT??????
Wednesday, February 14
Rate your Selectmen! an election game...
Below is a list of the last ten people to hold the office of selectman. Feel free to write in and rank them in order from best to worst. For example(xxx-1, xxy-2, xxz-3, etc. until you get to whomever you think is worst.)
We will assign a score of Ten points to 1st place, nine to 2nd, and so on, for each response. And at the end we will see who the respondants think is the best and worst selectman.
Paul Sullivan
Jack Sapia
Fred Childs
Phil Consentino
Brian Boyle
Joe DeRosa
Barbara Stewart
Mike Turell
Bob Morse
Berg Norris
Have some fun, and let us know what you think of your elected officials;
JOB PERFORMANCE, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN OFFICE ONLY! Not personality!
We will assign a score of Ten points to 1st place, nine to 2nd, and so on, for each response. And at the end we will see who the respondants think is the best and worst selectman.
Paul Sullivan
Jack Sapia
Fred Childs
Phil Consentino
Brian Boyle
Joe DeRosa
Barbara Stewart
Mike Turell
Bob Morse
Berg Norris
Have some fun, and let us know what you think of your elected officials;
JOB PERFORMANCE, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN OFFICE ONLY! Not personality!
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
