Publius please accept this as an article submission.
What is "Abuse of Authority"?
So we have heard much over the past couple of years about abuse of authority, but what does that mean? Well the textbook definition is Abuse of authority is further defined as it relates to personnel. It is an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by an official or employee that adversely affects the rights of any person or that result in personal gain or advantage to them.
That is a nice definition but again, what does this mean and how does this apply to Atkinson? Well the Town of Atkinson is currently embroiled in two lawsuits, alleging "abuses of authority" on the part of the "town" and it's "police chief", seeking multiple millions of dollars in damages. The issues are well known around town, and we have witnessed most of them unfolding, live and in color, as we watch our selectmen's meetings over the last few years.
So, would a police chief who pulls over people who are putting out political flyers, be abusing his authority in the process? Maybe yes, maybe no, without more details.
But what if he followed that action up by calling the US Postal inspectors service and demanding action?
What if he then revealed publicly on television, that this incident happened, and accused the person of committing a crime on television?
What about if he then called the newspaper to give the story out?
And what if he did not have the authority to detain the person in the first place?
Well, then probably yes, Most of us would consider that a governmental abuse of authority.
Would you consider it an abuse of authority if that police chief sent a private resident a certified letter on police stationary threatening legal action if that resident did not stop posting on this blog?
Well yes that would be an abuse of authority, especially once the selectmen admitted that they did not authorize such a letter.
Would you consider it an abuse of authority if that police chief called a residents employment and told them that the resident was "under investigation by the police dept."?
Most probably you would, especially if it were you.
So the question that comes from all of this is; What should the town do about this situation?
Well it just so happens that we find the answer in the town employee handbook, under employee discipline;
First instance; Verbal Warning
Second instance; Written Warning
Third instance; Suspension
Fourth instance; Termination
So have there been multiple complaint of the same variety, alleging similar problems? most certainly.
Have those complaint come from different residents? Absolutely.
Have the selectmen addressed any of these complaints and have they taken any action at all? None! Nothing apparent at least.
Right now some of you may be thinking, sure how many have their really been? For this answer there are a couple of places that spell out the documentation;
1.) http://atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com/2007/09/atkinsons-recent-past-and-ongiong-legal.html
2.)www.atkinsontaxpayers.org click on the complaints link and the lawsuits link.
3.) There have been many documented complaints, and we have seen a lot of them on tv.
So do any of you feel that these instances rise to the level of an abuse of authority, if so, why?
conversation starts now.
24 comments:
Absolutely! Without a doubt.
What troubles me is that it's happening so often and to so many, whenever things don't go his way. It's childish and scary that a grown man (who's carrying) would be so aggressive in chasing down anyone who has so much as a different political viewpoint. That we cannot publically campaign for whoever we want, that we cannot post a URL on our own property, that we cannot walk onto town property without the threat of verbal attack and possibly worse.
This has been festering for years and has become too large to contain or to manage. This is what Atkinson has become for anyone who dares to speak up. Well enough is enough. He's got to go, along with anyone who so dares to treat their neighbors with such disregard. This is especially true for anyone who works for us, that we pay to work for us.
Enough. Not another 3 years, not another year, not another week. End this now.
As a private resident I have written to seven different Law Enforcements offices, including the FBI, and recieved only three responses.
I am sure the selectmen have all read my complaints because I have heard that the news is passed on immediately. I am also sure not one resident has read or knows any thing about them.
As usual the responses were pretty much the same as far as any help being offered.
The standard letters arrived with what amounted to the"sorry but we have no control" and the Selectmen have all the control.
I did reply to each letter I recieved and was hoping that this last election might give us some relief. I am still hoping. It could happen.
It would be interesting to know if others have submitted any complaints, and if they did--was there any one out there that cared?
Mark,
You have way too much time on your hands. Move on with your life and enjoy it.
I am not defending the actions of these others but do you want to go to your grave missings all the good times that you could be having with your family?
Sad our affiars have become. Pressures on our selectman need to be made. Our selectman represent us the citizens. Maybe a petetion should be formed and signed by residents. Calls should be placed to the selectman asking for change.
Billy Manzi, the Mayor of Methuen has his soon-to-be-former-police chief on leave due to charges of corruption, abuse of power etc.
I refuse to believe we cannot push this. I also believe we should not HAVE to push this. When there are problems, the BOS should be looking at them and resolving them immediately.
For this reason, I view this as the number 1 issue for the BOS. If they don't remove the chief immediately, they are incompetent and ineffective. If he stays in his position, I will continue to look for someone to help yank him out.
This problem is not going away.
How long does a problem need to exist before something is done about it. Apparently in this town it seems like never. Some serious action should have been taken after the Peak case. However, it was just another day at the office.
The chief has a temper and anger management issues. I've seen it first hand and I was shocked. And now, the chief is packing again. To me, a temper and a firearm is like holding a match over a powder keg.
Just imagine if something were to happen. The town could easily be held liable because it was aware of problems, yet, for years, has failed to act. I believe the term is willful negligence.
I believe the fuse is lit and the town cannot wait for 3 years and hope something will not explode. Time to put the fuse out is now before it has a chance to blow up in our faces.
This one is long but worth the read.
Obviously, many complaints and lawsuits have been filed and most of it has been in the newspaper (and many of these documents are now posted on www.AtkinsonTaxpayers.org) and what has changed? Nothing.
Even if you could get all the tough talkers on this blog to actually show up at the Selectmen's meeting with ALL the evidence in one big pile including video clips and a few hundred signatures and the threat of more lawsuits, I am not convinced the selectmen will remove him. Seems to me the Selectmen have ignored the town personnel manual in the past and I don't believe that will change. But that is just my opinion.
Besides, I simply don't believe enough people in this town are willing to stand behind Mark Acciard, Carol Grant and any other resident who has suffered these abuses. Which I think is sad. I believe it is largely due to fear of reprisal, unwillingness to confront the town and an overall desire for political correctness (don't want to rock this boat and look like an extremist). After all, the chief has about as many supporters as he does non-supporters. I think his influence is waning, but I bet he could get 50 people to actually show up at town hall to support him. Imagine the circus that would generate and it would only keep the battle going and keep him in place. He enjoys that kind of battle. He loves it. It is in his comfort zone. I think your foolish to go their. The will of the people who actually show up supporting him will sway Selectmen - as opposed to those who don't show up. And you will be back to square one. I don't believe 50 people would show up to complain. The last deliberative session is the evidence to support my opinion.
So what is the solution?
I believe the answer is staring everyone right in the face.
Our 2007 town report stated 1644 transports were provided to seniors by Elderly Affairs. When is someone going to ask for the details down TO THE PENNY on actual town spending records that explains how the town, using taxpayer dollars, actually PAID FOR 1,644 rides given by Elderly Affairs on a $19,000 budget?
I could be wrong but I would bet the farm that it is not fiscally possible. Not even close. With the cost of vehicles, fuel, insurance, manpower, to only cost about $11 per ride? Using large, fuel inefficient vehicles and a van? Are you kidding me? If that could be done, we would all be in the taxi business.
The voters approved the 2007 budget of about $19,000 for Elderly Affairs. Any money spent beyond that must be approved by the Selectman for budget overrun. If that has not occurred by A LOT, then the only explanation is misappropriation of taxpayer funds and resources like vehicles. Just consider the cost of the cars themselves, prorated over time because you can't say they are all police cars when in actuality they are used to provide 1,644 rides, right? You have to prorate cost of acquisition, insurance and maintenance, based on actual useage. Either they are police cars or they are Elderly Affairs vehicles. If they are Elderly Affairs vehicles, how are they paid for? It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
So rather than try the same old political methods that havnt worked before, why not try a new approach? Go to an area that is a place of dis-comfort. Facts. Numbers. Public documents.
Asking for fiscal records under Right to Know is far less confrontational and is more likely to yield the information you need to achieve change. We are talking about public records that are undeniable, irrefutable evidence. And this evidence, if made public, is not about personalities or vendettas. Make it about facts and dollars.
It is completely reasonable for any resident to ask the town for documentation and an explanation on how it paid for an item or service. I would never consider it unusual to see any taxpayer in town do that for any dept. It is fair game and we have the Right to Know law as the hammer. It is after all, our money. No names have to be mentioned. Departments only. Time cards, fuel receipts, vehicle maintenance records, mileage, etc. Follow the money trail and you will find redemption.
If the evidence does not reveal anything wrong, then I wold be the first person to congratulate our Dept of Elderly Affairs for running such a cost efficient operation. We should find out how they do it so that other departments can operate as efficiently. Using this model, we may be able to get fire protection for like $30,000.
I have watched with horror as Phil's conduct has degraded befor my eyes.
I have watched him scream at people just for disagreeing with him.
I have seen him accuse the budget committee of slandering him because they were asking budget questions.
I have seen him chase a resident out into the hallway screaming at him, because he told everyone that he got threatening letters from Phil.
I have seen him slander Mr. Acard because he told everyone about Phil's threatening letter to him.
I have watched him scream and pound the desk when Mrs. Grant was reading a letter about his conduct.
This has gotten ridiculous. I am tired of paying legal fees for Phils bad behavior.
I am tired of watching the selectmen ignore his behavior while belittling Teddy for every little thing they can find.
So how does this all change?
to Anon 3/16@7:51P
Are you suggesting that Mark just rip up his family and move? Mark has let go every time only to be attacked and harassed again and again by a vindictive chief who can not stand the sight of Mark. Mark beat him in court on his own against his team of lawyers. The chief fills with rage every time he hears Mark's name. It is a miracle that the chief has not directly assaulted his family as well. I guess he figures that the feds would act much more quickly if his targets were not just a middle aged white guy.
Why should Mark's only "civil" response to this be to walk away from the town he grew up in and has given so much of his heart too to make it a better place for all residents.
Expenditures
Section 32:8
32:8 Limitation on Expenditures. – No board of selectmen, school board, village district commissioners or any other officer, employee, or agency of the municipality acting as such shall pay or agree to pay any money, or incur any liability involving the expenditure of any money, for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated by the legislative body for that purpose, or for any purpose for which no appropriation has been made, except as provided in RSA 32:9-11.
So I am interpreting this RSA to mean you can't exceed your budget approved by town vote. Then there is this:
Expenditures
Section 32:12
32:12 Penalty. – Any person or persons violating the provisions of this subdivision shall be subject to removal from office on proper petition brought before the superior court. Such petition shall take precedence over other actions pending in the court and shall be heard and decided as speedily as possible.
So if the amount of expenditures for Elderly Affairs exceeds the budget (note: budget can be increased by the selectmen who are authorized to "Transfer", see RSA 32:9-11.), then I interpret these RSAs to mean that is a no-no.
Go to the Selectmen and ask for a list of all expenditures that answer the following question: How did the town of Atkinson's Elderly Affairs department pay for 1,644 transports of senior residents in 2007? Every ride, every gallon of gas, every mile, every labor hour, insurance, vehicles, every penny. How was this done? Inquiring minds want to know.
Looking at the financials may work, and may be the only way. permit me an extreme analogy.
Al Capone in his day was obviously a very bad person, his crimes extreme. Even then, the traditional methods to convict him did not work. It was the feds going after his failure to pay his taxes that finally got him convicted.
Now, I'm in no way suggesting the chief is like Al Capone, but the situation is nearly identical. In the private sector he'd would have been history years ago. I'm sure that there are other communities that would have put a stop to it long before now. But in Atkinson, he's teflon, and barring some really egregious act (and it would probably have to be a real doozy), nothing is likely to change.
However, playing fast and loose with public monies can force outside agencies to act. As someone implied before, the chief gets very defensive when it comes to his budget. Maybe there is a good reason why.
Yes but in Pittsfield NH the selectmen fired and the NH Supreme Court upheld the firing of the police chief, I think his name was Blake, just because he overspent his budget two years in a row, by a total of $4,000.
Consentino has overspent his budget by more than that in 2004, or 2005, and the selectmen did not even bat an eye.
You don't have to be a genius to realize the courts could never risk setting a precedent that would condone overspending of public monies. Indeed, the RSA is clear where it states "Such petition shall take precedence over other actions pending in the court and shall be heard and decided as speedily as possible."
So it is obviously a priority in the courts. And if there is strong legal precedent in NH for this scenario as mentioned by leaglebeagle, you have several aspects of the law strongly in your favor.
We will only know if the question gets asked: How did the town of Atkinson's Elderly Affairs Dept pay for 1,644 senior transports in 2007?
To 7:51 am sounds like a Sapia rerun from the meetings. Move on. Wish he would move on.
to everyone who is talking about record keeping.....The Chief is the only one who keeps the books and the onlyone who can manipulate them. So do you think if you ask him to prove out the numbers, that he won't just pencil in what he needs, to apease the selectman? If the selectman are truely independant, and not tied to anyone, they will see the real facts and fire phil. In my opinion they would be hero's if they do so. And would make this town one again. Be the hero, Paul, Fred and Bill and end the fraud in Atkinson. Trust me, you dont want to be on board a sinking ship, That is the Captains place.
Jack, What are you doing wearing a hat in building? During last nights selectman's meeting, one could only notice that Jack has having all these little side conversations on camera and unlike a gentleman, he never took his hat off.
Are you surprised.
to 6:53.....we noticed the same thing. I wondered if he was trying to make Paul nervous....I don't think his presence was necessary. Who is that man that he kept talking to? It looked very rude to me. Guess his mom never taught him that you take your hat off inside!
In response to Anon 6:53
Guess that would depend on which hat he was wearing. If it were the Friel hat, that's a disgrace. If it was "43", that's a good thing. You can buy those, you know. $25 each with all proceeds going to the Laphams.
He was wearing his "Friel" hat, prominently displayed for the camera. And the gentleman he kept whispering to was Mike Fletcher.
Gloating Sapia was....Bill, you should never of let him do that. Im getting that sinking feeling....anyone else?
No sinking feeling here. Jack had some comments about the Deputy Town Clerk's position which Paul listened to and then ignored.
As long as Paul continues to politely listen and then ignore (when required) we'll be all right.
Paul might also want to address the whispering. There should be only one meeting going on, not two. If the private conversation are so important, the parties should be asked to take it outside. This will generally quiet things down in a hurry.
The quicker Jack is made to understand his new roll, that it is not HIS meeting and that it is not HIS building, the sooner real progress can be made.
You know i was looking forward to watching the selectmans meeting for the first time in 3 years without Jack's face trying to get the attention of the camera.. Didn't Jack say in his "tearfull farwell" (sniff, sniff) , excuse me for a moment.... Ok im better now, but any how..didn't Jack say that he would be home on monday nites now for his children? I did hear him say that, so why was he there on Monday nites selectmans meeting?
Post a Comment