Last night's selectmen's meeting was worthy of a golden globe, or at least a people's choice award. It combined tragedy, comedy, farce, although little suspense other than the mysterious contents of Lt. Baldwin's 8" stack of folders, that in his words "my superiors" asked me not to discuss. This blog couldn't believe that we heard that nor that the selectmen let that pass. Lt. Baldwin stated that he HAD accurate cost figures for the tower, but that he would not reveal them at that time at the request of his superiors??? Lt. Baldwin cut an impressive figure in his uniform, calm, reasonable, professional he was at his best, this blog knows not why, if this is truly so important it can not be revealed to the public as soon as the facts are known.
From Conservations sales pitch for a land swap that is set to trade the use of ten acres of conservation land for the de facto ownership of twenty acres of town land. Followed up with Recreation's explaination of the make up of their board. To Selectmen's Sapia's verbal roasting of S'Mores and singing of Kumbaya, regarding the amount of time and effort exhibited by volunteers, and the need for conservation land, AND recreation land, as well as the apparently pressing need for 4 acres of land(What was THAT all about?).
But Selectmen Sullivan raised a very important issue that we have seen raised by other town officials in recent months, and have written about on this blog. The issue of selectmen business being discussed and carried on in meetings that are unposted, unminuted, and unviewed by the public, and furthermore that one third of our board of selectmen, selectman Sullivan is not even present to participate in. Unfortunately for the town, these meetings DO take place, have been observed by many, and selectman Sullivan is correct to assert his right to participate in any town business. Selectman Sapia is, once again, wrong when he said he didn't need Sullivan to read him the law on this issue, SOMEONE Needs to! There have been cases in NH law where selectmen have sued for their right to participate in town business. It is a staple of state jurisprudence. It is this blog's opinion that Mrs. Mangini mistook selectman Sullivan's complaint to be directed at her, it was directed at his own board. Mrs. Mangini is mostly correct, in that instance she did nothing wrong, she was fulfilling her role as Rec. Director. The selectmen should conduct most all of the towns business in public, and STOP THESE BACKROOM DEALS!!!
Tuesday, January 23
Friday, January 19
Lack of the Democratic Process at Deliberative Sessions
In the Jan. 17 Eagle Tribune appears a "Letter To the Editor" by an Atkinson resident. The letter was about how the conduct allowed in our Deliberative Sessions had made a mockery of "the democratic process in the Town of Atkinson." What is significant, is that the incidents cited by the letter writer are not something new. Instead, they have become regular occurrences in the last couple years.
The letter makes valid points. Some special interest groups are going to our Deliberative Session not to deliberate, but to destroy by amendment, warrant articles they don’t like for the purpose of denying Atkinson Town Meeting voters the opportunity for fair up or down votes on those articles.
The "outraged" letter writer cites mockeries of democracy which happened at two recent Deliberative Sessions. The first example cited a special interest group’s efforts to "zero out the funding associated with a new library," so that even if voters passed the article at Town Meeting, the will of the voters would have been thwarted and the article would not be able to accomplish its intent. Our Moderator kept silent and provided no words or leadership concerning their attempt to make a mockery of the town meeting vote. (The same thing happened at a previous Deliberative Session with regard to the Vietnam Honor Roll warrant article).
The letter writer also cited the 2006 Deliberative Session where the intent of a warrant article was totally butchered by a special interest group who "changed the language to some innocuous wording having nothing to do with the original warrant article." Amending an article for the sole purpose of destroying it to prevent Atkinson voters from being able to vote on it is totally unacceptable and counter to the spirit of Town Meeting.
The letter writer also cited how motions to cut off debate or move questions are allowed before residents who wish to speak, can do so. Our Moderator says nothing while these residents are denied the right to speak. Residents come to Deliberative Session to express a point of view. When they are denied that right, it is counter to the spirit and intent of Deliberative Session. As our Moderator, Mr. Polito doesn’t seem willing to point out, or maybe just doesn’t understand the purpose of a Deliberative Session is to deliberate.
Petitioned warrant articles submitted by our citizens are examples of the purest form of democracy. Citizens take the time to write warrant articles and get petition signatures so an issue can come to ballot vote, so that Atkinson "neighbors have the opportunity to vote on efforts that dedicated people worked hard to get on the ballot." Yet, too often at recent Deliberative Sessions, those citizens’ initiative, petitioned warrant articles are amended to oblivion.
Many residents are unable to attend Deliberative Session. They either work, are ill, have to care for small children, are elderly and unable to sit on those folding chairs for long periods, etc. So a small special interest group can easily "take over" a Deliberative Session.
Yes, it is legally permissible for a special interest groups to act counter to the spirit of a Deliberative Session. However, a Moderator worth his salt, would speak up and point out that some actions, while legally permissible, are morally wrong. Is it asking too much for our Moderator to just once, show some backbone and stand up for what is right vrs. wrong,-- what is legally allowable vrs. what is morally correct, --what is fair vrs. unfair.
Pointing out to those who subvert the process that they wouldn't like it if the tables were turned, might give them pause to consider the harm their actions are doing to the democratic process. How much longer are we going to have a Moderator who shirks his responsibility to, at least, say something and urge that the democratic process not be perverted? Maybe the time has come for a new Moderator.
The letter makes valid points. Some special interest groups are going to our Deliberative Session not to deliberate, but to destroy by amendment, warrant articles they don’t like for the purpose of denying Atkinson Town Meeting voters the opportunity for fair up or down votes on those articles.
The "outraged" letter writer cites mockeries of democracy which happened at two recent Deliberative Sessions. The first example cited a special interest group’s efforts to "zero out the funding associated with a new library," so that even if voters passed the article at Town Meeting, the will of the voters would have been thwarted and the article would not be able to accomplish its intent. Our Moderator kept silent and provided no words or leadership concerning their attempt to make a mockery of the town meeting vote. (The same thing happened at a previous Deliberative Session with regard to the Vietnam Honor Roll warrant article).
The letter writer also cited the 2006 Deliberative Session where the intent of a warrant article was totally butchered by a special interest group who "changed the language to some innocuous wording having nothing to do with the original warrant article." Amending an article for the sole purpose of destroying it to prevent Atkinson voters from being able to vote on it is totally unacceptable and counter to the spirit of Town Meeting.
The letter writer also cited how motions to cut off debate or move questions are allowed before residents who wish to speak, can do so. Our Moderator says nothing while these residents are denied the right to speak. Residents come to Deliberative Session to express a point of view. When they are denied that right, it is counter to the spirit and intent of Deliberative Session. As our Moderator, Mr. Polito doesn’t seem willing to point out, or maybe just doesn’t understand the purpose of a Deliberative Session is to deliberate.
Petitioned warrant articles submitted by our citizens are examples of the purest form of democracy. Citizens take the time to write warrant articles and get petition signatures so an issue can come to ballot vote, so that Atkinson "neighbors have the opportunity to vote on efforts that dedicated people worked hard to get on the ballot." Yet, too often at recent Deliberative Sessions, those citizens’ initiative, petitioned warrant articles are amended to oblivion.
Many residents are unable to attend Deliberative Session. They either work, are ill, have to care for small children, are elderly and unable to sit on those folding chairs for long periods, etc. So a small special interest group can easily "take over" a Deliberative Session.
Yes, it is legally permissible for a special interest groups to act counter to the spirit of a Deliberative Session. However, a Moderator worth his salt, would speak up and point out that some actions, while legally permissible, are morally wrong. Is it asking too much for our Moderator to just once, show some backbone and stand up for what is right vrs. wrong,-- what is legally allowable vrs. what is morally correct, --what is fair vrs. unfair.
Pointing out to those who subvert the process that they wouldn't like it if the tables were turned, might give them pause to consider the harm their actions are doing to the democratic process. How much longer are we going to have a Moderator who shirks his responsibility to, at least, say something and urge that the democratic process not be perverted? Maybe the time has come for a new Moderator.
Wednesday, January 17
Conflict of Interest again rears it ugly head...
in Atkinson Town Government. This time the accusation was made at the Budget Committee public hearing last night by Planning Board chair, Ms. Killam, with able assistance by our Town Moderator Mr. Polito. Their complaint was against budget committee member Brian Boyle. Ms. Killam's assertion was that he is an abutter to the proposed site for the new signal tower behind the salt shed. Apparently Mr. Boyle's development at Winslow Dr. is within 200' of the tower site, according to Ms. Killam, and she stated that he could not discuss, deliberate, or vote upon this matter because of this. Mr. Boyle apparently feels his property is outside the 200' limit, but budget committee chair, Mark Acciard still asked him to avoid "the appearance" of impropriety, by stepping down from the committee and speaking from the audience; Which, to his credit Mr. Boyle agreed to do, unlike other notable town officials in recent history.
What is really humorous about this entire incident is that Mr. Polito, while evidently feeling that a tract of land which may be somewhere around the 200' limit set by the town's code of ethics ordinance is such a major infraction, didn't hold that position for the last three years as he told the town in numerous public meetings that it would be "no conflict" for a town employee to serve as selectman. He was wrong as decided by both Rockingham Superior Court, NH Supreme Court, and Atkinson Code of Ethics committee.
As for Ms. Killam, this blog finds it amusing that she is evidently concerned about this distance between Mr. Boyle development and the tower causing the potential for conflict, but is completely non-plussed by the fact that the ad hoc committee responsible for selling this abomination is a steaming cauldron of conflicts, with every member of the committee either living on High Hill rd. or earning their living or in one case retirement from various police depts. All people having clear interests.
Nor does she evidently have an issue with a proposed warrant article to establish a revolving fund for the recreation dept. that is under the authority of the "Recreation Commission". According to selectman Childs and Sullivan; this commission is comprised of the Recreation Dept. Head, Mrs. Mangini; Rec.Dept. employee, Mrs. Travers; Mrs. Mangini's boss in her private employment, Mrs. Thompson; and finally the Son of one of the aforementioned people, although whose was not clear. Although selectman Sullivan maintains that only two fo these people were ever appointed by the selectmen. Is it possible that there could exist, a board with more internal conflicts than this?
Is there anyone on this board, who is not related by marriage, or employment, to the rec. dept.?
What is really humorous about this entire incident is that Mr. Polito, while evidently feeling that a tract of land which may be somewhere around the 200' limit set by the town's code of ethics ordinance is such a major infraction, didn't hold that position for the last three years as he told the town in numerous public meetings that it would be "no conflict" for a town employee to serve as selectman. He was wrong as decided by both Rockingham Superior Court, NH Supreme Court, and Atkinson Code of Ethics committee.
As for Ms. Killam, this blog finds it amusing that she is evidently concerned about this distance between Mr. Boyle development and the tower causing the potential for conflict, but is completely non-plussed by the fact that the ad hoc committee responsible for selling this abomination is a steaming cauldron of conflicts, with every member of the committee either living on High Hill rd. or earning their living or in one case retirement from various police depts. All people having clear interests.
Nor does she evidently have an issue with a proposed warrant article to establish a revolving fund for the recreation dept. that is under the authority of the "Recreation Commission". According to selectman Childs and Sullivan; this commission is comprised of the Recreation Dept. Head, Mrs. Mangini; Rec.Dept. employee, Mrs. Travers; Mrs. Mangini's boss in her private employment, Mrs. Thompson; and finally the Son of one of the aforementioned people, although whose was not clear. Although selectman Sullivan maintains that only two fo these people were ever appointed by the selectmen. Is it possible that there could exist, a board with more internal conflicts than this?
Is there anyone on this board, who is not related by marriage, or employment, to the rec. dept.?
Monday, January 15
The Public has NO "Right to Know" according to Rep. Garrity
This Blog can not believe that our own Rep. Jim Garrity, who has stated many times his advocacy of the public's "Right to know" under RSA 91A, has thrown us under the bus like this.
Rep. Garrity sponsored HB82 which is an ammendment to the "Right to Know" Law, RSA 91A. This ammendment is disclosed in it's entirety below:
RSA 91-A:2-a Communications Outside Meetings.
I. Any communications, in whatever form, outside a meeting among the members of a quorum of the membership of a public body which bear upon matters over which such body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power shall be disclosed at the next meeting of the body before any decision may be made, including a decision not to act. If such communications are in writing, copies or printouts shall be made a part of the public record. Communications among less than a quorum of members need not be disclosed.
II. Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit of this chapter.
III. The disclosure requirements of paragraphs I and II shall not apply to communications specifically exempted from the definition of a “meeting” under RSA 91-A:2, I.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2007.
SPONSORS: Rep. J. Thomas, Belk 5; Rep. J. Garrity, Rock 6; Rep. Espiefs, Ches 3
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS: This bill clarifies communications outside a meeting for the purposes of RSA 91-A.
This seems to be more in line with Rep. Garrity's one glaring misdeed last year when he came into a public selectmen's meeting here in Atkinson and PRAISED our board of selectmen for their ETHICAL CONDUCT in running the town????? This after 6 Code of Ethics committee complaints, and 3 court orders, telling them to cease and desist!!!
He and his buddies in the Capital have GUTTED the Right to Know law!!!
A number of town officials have complained and/or mentioned many times, on camera, selectman Sapia's many unposted, unminuted meetings with one other selectman where town business may have been discussed, and noone would be the wiser. Selectman Sapia's truck spent so much time at the PD during his first year in office that he should have had it lettered and lighted. However this practice stopped when the Chief was replaced with Mr. Sullivan, at that point the meetings switched to the town hall two to three times a week first thing in the morning with Mr. Childs.
Now imagine this scenario where this is now legal, as long as the next time they meet in private they disclose to each other that they met in private.
Thank you Rep. Garrity for ushering us into the era of " BACK-ROOM DEALS POLITICS"
Rep. Garrity sponsored HB82 which is an ammendment to the "Right to Know" Law, RSA 91A. This ammendment is disclosed in it's entirety below:
RSA 91-A:2-a Communications Outside Meetings.
I. Any communications, in whatever form, outside a meeting among the members of a quorum of the membership of a public body which bear upon matters over which such body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power shall be disclosed at the next meeting of the body before any decision may be made, including a decision not to act. If such communications are in writing, copies or printouts shall be made a part of the public record. Communications among less than a quorum of members need not be disclosed.
II. Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit of this chapter.
III. The disclosure requirements of paragraphs I and II shall not apply to communications specifically exempted from the definition of a “meeting” under RSA 91-A:2, I.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2007.
SPONSORS: Rep. J. Thomas, Belk 5; Rep. J. Garrity, Rock 6; Rep. Espiefs, Ches 3
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS: This bill clarifies communications outside a meeting for the purposes of RSA 91-A.
This seems to be more in line with Rep. Garrity's one glaring misdeed last year when he came into a public selectmen's meeting here in Atkinson and PRAISED our board of selectmen for their ETHICAL CONDUCT in running the town????? This after 6 Code of Ethics committee complaints, and 3 court orders, telling them to cease and desist!!!
He and his buddies in the Capital have GUTTED the Right to Know law!!!
A number of town officials have complained and/or mentioned many times, on camera, selectman Sapia's many unposted, unminuted meetings with one other selectman where town business may have been discussed, and noone would be the wiser. Selectman Sapia's truck spent so much time at the PD during his first year in office that he should have had it lettered and lighted. However this practice stopped when the Chief was replaced with Mr. Sullivan, at that point the meetings switched to the town hall two to three times a week first thing in the morning with Mr. Childs.
Now imagine this scenario where this is now legal, as long as the next time they meet in private they disclose to each other that they met in private.
Thank you Rep. Garrity for ushering us into the era of " BACK-ROOM DEALS POLITICS"
Sunday, January 14
-$600,000 from the town's revenue and what do you get?
The planning board, in a public hearing last week voted to recommend waiving the school impact fees for the 55+ housing complex being built at the Country Club. The effect of this decision, should it pass the voters will be to give Mr. Lewis a $600,000- $800,000 gift at the Town's expense. And why is this necesary? hmmm, this blog doesn't know...
It is not an incentive to get the project built because it is going to be built anyway.
I know that with the age designation it would appear that their will be no impact on schools, but do we know that? Do we know how many grandparents will have their grandkids living with them because Timberlane's schools are better than Lawrence or wherever their kids live? Do we know how many grandparents will move out of homes on walker rd. or somewhere else in town where they raised their kids and move into the new project leaving their old home open for the family with 4 kids to move into? Has anyone done an independent study of this?
Normally this blog would be in favor of this type of free market incentivism, but in this case these fees which are about $2000 per unit x 300-400 units means the town loses $600,000- $800,000. and for what? Typically these fees go to the town and in the past the town has used them to offset a portion of the school districts extortion demand upon our budget. Either way it is 3/4 of a million dollars that doesn't have to come from the taxpayers.
Now this blog is not criticizing Mr. Lewis at all. His contributions to this town are legion. Every project he has built in town has helped to keep our tax rate among the lowest in southern NH. And leaving these fees in place are not going to hurt him one bit. That $2000 will simply be built into the price of the condo and paid by the purchaser. Noone gets hurt here and the town wins. The town will win big with this project anyway. The revenue to be brought in by this project will offset approximately 25-30% of our Towns portion of the budget, if the Budget Committee can keep the Selectmen from spending it all like drunken sailors, it will reduce everyone in towns taxes by a similar amount.
It is not an incentive to get the project built because it is going to be built anyway.
I know that with the age designation it would appear that their will be no impact on schools, but do we know that? Do we know how many grandparents will have their grandkids living with them because Timberlane's schools are better than Lawrence or wherever their kids live? Do we know how many grandparents will move out of homes on walker rd. or somewhere else in town where they raised their kids and move into the new project leaving their old home open for the family with 4 kids to move into? Has anyone done an independent study of this?
Normally this blog would be in favor of this type of free market incentivism, but in this case these fees which are about $2000 per unit x 300-400 units means the town loses $600,000- $800,000. and for what? Typically these fees go to the town and in the past the town has used them to offset a portion of the school districts extortion demand upon our budget. Either way it is 3/4 of a million dollars that doesn't have to come from the taxpayers.
Now this blog is not criticizing Mr. Lewis at all. His contributions to this town are legion. Every project he has built in town has helped to keep our tax rate among the lowest in southern NH. And leaving these fees in place are not going to hurt him one bit. That $2000 will simply be built into the price of the condo and paid by the purchaser. Noone gets hurt here and the town wins. The town will win big with this project anyway. The revenue to be brought in by this project will offset approximately 25-30% of our Towns portion of the budget, if the Budget Committee can keep the Selectmen from spending it all like drunken sailors, it will reduce everyone in towns taxes by a similar amount.
Saturday, January 13
The Things you hear hanging around Town Hall...
It is often said that entertainment is where you find it... well lately it has been in town hall. From One selectmen swearing and screaming at another( and the recipient's class at taking it.) to the town administrator chewing out the budget committee chair, followed by the screaming selectman having words with the budget committee chair, it has been an entertaining week!
It started out with selectman Sapia screaming at selectman Sullivan. This blog does not know what started their conversation but it ended with Sapia screaming "F*** YOU, PAUL!!! F*** YOU, F*** YOU, F*** YOU! This is obviously the way to conduct the towns business, or maybe this is just how selectmen disagree. At any rate Mr. Sullivan took this outrage with calm and class, a true gentleman, in contrast to his antagonist. Mr. Sullivan simply looked at Mr. Sapia screaming and swearing at him and said "Meeting over, Jack".
What a contrast! This blog is appalled at the way in which business has been done in this town for the last three years. It is a disgrace! The time for change is now!
It started out with selectman Sapia screaming at selectman Sullivan. This blog does not know what started their conversation but it ended with Sapia screaming "F*** YOU, PAUL!!! F*** YOU, F*** YOU, F*** YOU! This is obviously the way to conduct the towns business, or maybe this is just how selectmen disagree. At any rate Mr. Sullivan took this outrage with calm and class, a true gentleman, in contrast to his antagonist. Mr. Sullivan simply looked at Mr. Sapia screaming and swearing at him and said "Meeting over, Jack".
What a contrast! This blog is appalled at the way in which business has been done in this town for the last three years. It is a disgrace! The time for change is now!
Thursday, January 11
Town Business can't be transacted???.......
That's right. You won't hear the board of selectmen admit it, especially as mr. Childs has stated his intention to run for selectman AGAIN this year in the hopes that his friends and other town employees will overturn Article 21 from last year, prohibiting town employees from serving.
At the Budget Committee Meeting on Tues. night there was discussion over what constituted a "full-time" employee. Well here is how this comedy of errors played out;
Budget Committee Chair Mark Acciard, asked what the employee handbook said was a full time employee?
Budget Committee Member Dave Paquette, had with him a copy of the most recent revision dated June 2003, which stated 40 hours regularly scheduled.
Budget Committee member and former Selectman Brian Boyle, agreed with the 40 hour rule.
Selectman Paul Sullivan said he thought it was 32 hours. He remembered a lot of discussion on it in 2005.
Chief and former selectman Consentino said he was sure it was 32 hours.
Cable TV director Erica Jordan said she had TWO employee manuals, one stated 40 hours, one stated 32 hours!
All of these town officials in one room and noone knew for sure what constituted a full time employee!! AMAZING! AND WHY?
Because while the Chief spent 2004 and 2005 trying to revamp the town employee manual, and change full time from 40 to 32 hours, it was pointed out in 2004 by then selectman Brian Boyle that the board COULD NOT VOTE ON ANY EMPLOYEE MANUAL CHANGES BECAUSE TWO OF THEM WERE TOWN EMPLOYEES!!!
At that time both the Chief and Selectman Childs were under Code of Ethics complaints from Budget Committee Chair Acciard. And in 2005 Rockingham Superior Court stated that they had to recuse themselves.
And in a beautiful twist of poetic justice to the two men who do not have the honor and ethics to step aside when they should and to the townspeople that elected them..... the Town's employee manual has not been updated since June 2003 because since that time the board has been comprised of two town employees, and they can't vote on it.
Now state law provides for this; The selectmen could ask the Court to appoint two former selectmen to deal with those issues, but they won't do that because it would be an admission that they were wrong in the first place.
This is a Publius Axiom; "If you put your own needs, wants or desires before those of the Town and the voters, you don't deserve to hold those positions."
At the Budget Committee Meeting on Tues. night there was discussion over what constituted a "full-time" employee. Well here is how this comedy of errors played out;
Budget Committee Chair Mark Acciard, asked what the employee handbook said was a full time employee?
Budget Committee Member Dave Paquette, had with him a copy of the most recent revision dated June 2003, which stated 40 hours regularly scheduled.
Budget Committee member and former Selectman Brian Boyle, agreed with the 40 hour rule.
Selectman Paul Sullivan said he thought it was 32 hours. He remembered a lot of discussion on it in 2005.
Chief and former selectman Consentino said he was sure it was 32 hours.
Cable TV director Erica Jordan said she had TWO employee manuals, one stated 40 hours, one stated 32 hours!
All of these town officials in one room and noone knew for sure what constituted a full time employee!! AMAZING! AND WHY?
Because while the Chief spent 2004 and 2005 trying to revamp the town employee manual, and change full time from 40 to 32 hours, it was pointed out in 2004 by then selectman Brian Boyle that the board COULD NOT VOTE ON ANY EMPLOYEE MANUAL CHANGES BECAUSE TWO OF THEM WERE TOWN EMPLOYEES!!!
At that time both the Chief and Selectman Childs were under Code of Ethics complaints from Budget Committee Chair Acciard. And in 2005 Rockingham Superior Court stated that they had to recuse themselves.
And in a beautiful twist of poetic justice to the two men who do not have the honor and ethics to step aside when they should and to the townspeople that elected them..... the Town's employee manual has not been updated since June 2003 because since that time the board has been comprised of two town employees, and they can't vote on it.
Now state law provides for this; The selectmen could ask the Court to appoint two former selectmen to deal with those issues, but they won't do that because it would be an admission that they were wrong in the first place.
This is a Publius Axiom; "If you put your own needs, wants or desires before those of the Town and the voters, you don't deserve to hold those positions."
Wednesday, January 10
Selectmen Strike again!
Atkinson Selectmen; that most prolific producers of lawsuits in the history of the town( at least in the last three years)are doing it again! At least two members of this board just can not seem to stop disparaging residents with whom they disagree. At Monday's selectmen's meeting the board heard a whining plea from our town moderator, Mr. Polito, for the taxpayers to pay for his legal expenses in the latest suit. Mr. Polito asserted that this lawsuit was "laughable" but what is really laughable is a, by all accounts intelligent, man who when served with a suit alleging slander and defamation, his first instinct is to further slander and defame the person suing him. Go Figure.
As Mr. Polito explained, his portion of this complaint stems from his visit to a live selectmen's meeting last year to whine about a personal letter that Mrs. Grant had written him, in which she told him that she didn't like his job performance, and stated " you are no Jack Herlihy". Mind you this was a personal letter, not published anywhere, nor in the public domain. Mr. Polito made it public when he came into a selectmen's meeting and berated Mrs. Grant, on camera for 19 minutes. When Mrs. Grant, who was in attendance at said meeting, asked the selectmen to allow her equal time to rebut his defamatory comments, the selectmen refused stating "that is not selectmen's business" well I dare say neither was Mr. Polito whinefest, but the selectmen allowed that. ANYWAY..... that is, in part why Mr. Polito is named in the suit. This blog, being dilligent in our research has obtained a copy of this suit from Brentwood. Mr. Polito stated Monday evening that he was acting in the capacity of his office as town moderator when he came into a selectmen's meeting to defame Mrs. Grant, and therefore the town should pay to get him out of trouble arising from his own personal actions, This blog doesn't agree. Yet this board of selectmen has a rich history of spending the taxpayers money to pay town officials PERSONAL legal expenses. Here is a brief summary;
1.) Budget Committee Chair, Mark Acciard, in 2004, filed a writ asking the court to rule on whether or not a selectman who is also police chief could execute police business. On May 10, 2005 the court said no! Chief must recuse himself! (something any honorable man would have done without having to be told, as Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Morse has done for years)and the taxpayers paid the legal fees, as was proper. SCORE: RESIDENTS:1 SELECTMEN:0
2.) Evidently the chief continued to violate that order because on Sept. 6, 2005, the Court found him in Contempt of Court for violating that May 10 Order, and threatened him with arrest and jail if he continued to disobey the Court. And the taxpayers paid the legal fees even thought the town was not responsible for them after the chief lost.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:2 SELECTMEN:0
3.) Chief announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court. Superior Court issued their Order as an Interim Temporary Order to remain in effect until the Supreme Court has disposed of the case. And the taxpayers footed the bill once again, even thought the town was not responsible after the chief lost for the third time. SCORE: RESIDENTS:3 SELECTMEN:0
4.) The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal had no merit. Superior Court ruling upheld. Taxpayers footed the bil for a SUPREME COURT APPEAL FOR NO REASON, even though the town was not responsible after the chief lost for the fourth time.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:4 SELECTMEN:0
5.) Our Town Moderator, Mr. Polito; decided to sue the very town he moderates for.... why? you ask? was it for any noble purpose? was it to bring to light any official malfeasance? Nope! It was because the Fire Chief traded a 12' wide paved pathway through the woods that was someone's driveway, as a fire access path for a live fire hydrant in a neighborhood with no water to fight fires!(not to mention a big school) Mr. Polito evidently thought that his needs as a resident who lives 3 miles away outweighs the fire safety needs of the neighborhood receiving the hydrant.
WRONG!! The case was dismissed, The Court said Mr. Polito didn't have standing to bring it in the first place. In essense they said it was none of his business.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:5 TOWN OFFICIALS:0
6.)Mrs. Grant brought a petition to the Court to remove selectman Sapia and Childs from office for allegedly violating their oaths of office. Case went to court Nov. 3, 2006, Still no decision! 9 weeks and counting and still no decision. Logic dictates that when the selectmen dismiss her suit with a laugh, it should be a nervous laugh at best. 9 weeks to a decision says that maybe the Grants case was not as frivolous as they have been saying. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
SCORE: TIE SO FAR.....
As Mr. Polito explained, his portion of this complaint stems from his visit to a live selectmen's meeting last year to whine about a personal letter that Mrs. Grant had written him, in which she told him that she didn't like his job performance, and stated " you are no Jack Herlihy". Mind you this was a personal letter, not published anywhere, nor in the public domain. Mr. Polito made it public when he came into a selectmen's meeting and berated Mrs. Grant, on camera for 19 minutes. When Mrs. Grant, who was in attendance at said meeting, asked the selectmen to allow her equal time to rebut his defamatory comments, the selectmen refused stating "that is not selectmen's business" well I dare say neither was Mr. Polito whinefest, but the selectmen allowed that. ANYWAY..... that is, in part why Mr. Polito is named in the suit. This blog, being dilligent in our research has obtained a copy of this suit from Brentwood. Mr. Polito stated Monday evening that he was acting in the capacity of his office as town moderator when he came into a selectmen's meeting to defame Mrs. Grant, and therefore the town should pay to get him out of trouble arising from his own personal actions, This blog doesn't agree. Yet this board of selectmen has a rich history of spending the taxpayers money to pay town officials PERSONAL legal expenses. Here is a brief summary;
1.) Budget Committee Chair, Mark Acciard, in 2004, filed a writ asking the court to rule on whether or not a selectman who is also police chief could execute police business. On May 10, 2005 the court said no! Chief must recuse himself! (something any honorable man would have done without having to be told, as Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Morse has done for years)and the taxpayers paid the legal fees, as was proper. SCORE: RESIDENTS:1 SELECTMEN:0
2.) Evidently the chief continued to violate that order because on Sept. 6, 2005, the Court found him in Contempt of Court for violating that May 10 Order, and threatened him with arrest and jail if he continued to disobey the Court. And the taxpayers paid the legal fees even thought the town was not responsible for them after the chief lost.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:2 SELECTMEN:0
3.) Chief announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court. Superior Court issued their Order as an Interim Temporary Order to remain in effect until the Supreme Court has disposed of the case. And the taxpayers footed the bill once again, even thought the town was not responsible after the chief lost for the third time. SCORE: RESIDENTS:3 SELECTMEN:0
4.) The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal had no merit. Superior Court ruling upheld. Taxpayers footed the bil for a SUPREME COURT APPEAL FOR NO REASON, even though the town was not responsible after the chief lost for the fourth time.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:4 SELECTMEN:0
5.) Our Town Moderator, Mr. Polito; decided to sue the very town he moderates for.... why? you ask? was it for any noble purpose? was it to bring to light any official malfeasance? Nope! It was because the Fire Chief traded a 12' wide paved pathway through the woods that was someone's driveway, as a fire access path for a live fire hydrant in a neighborhood with no water to fight fires!(not to mention a big school) Mr. Polito evidently thought that his needs as a resident who lives 3 miles away outweighs the fire safety needs of the neighborhood receiving the hydrant.
WRONG!! The case was dismissed, The Court said Mr. Polito didn't have standing to bring it in the first place. In essense they said it was none of his business.
SCORE: RESIDENTS:5 TOWN OFFICIALS:0
6.)Mrs. Grant brought a petition to the Court to remove selectman Sapia and Childs from office for allegedly violating their oaths of office. Case went to court Nov. 3, 2006, Still no decision! 9 weeks and counting and still no decision. Logic dictates that when the selectmen dismiss her suit with a laugh, it should be a nervous laugh at best. 9 weeks to a decision says that maybe the Grants case was not as frivolous as they have been saying. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
SCORE: TIE SO FAR.....
Sunday, January 7
Saturday, January 6
Selectmen... Not Hypocratic, but Hypocritical!
The beauty of hearing any proposal by the Chief or Lt. Baldwin is that it gives our pluperfect selectman; Smilin' Jack Sapia another chance to express his undying admiration, love, affection, and reverence for anything remotely "Life Safety" related. It is the position of the "Cell Tower Cabal" that the remote possibility of an officer finding himself in harm's way in Atkinson justifies any expense to give this group their christmas wish lists.
If Mr. Consistency is as concerned about "life safety" as he constantly states in selectmen's meetings then what has he done about the fire safety situation at the Atkinson Academy?
Last year; volunteers were offering to improve the little league field behind the Academy, build a parking lot for it to relieve the parking problems on Birch ln., and to build a fire access road from said parking lot down to the school. Mr. Sapia and Mr. Consentino, in an effort to screw Mr. Boyle who had agreed to put a live hydrant on woodlawn ave.(an area of the town with no water to fight fires) in return for not having to build a paved path through the woods with a 90 degree bend in it that will not even allow for the passage of our newest fire truck; went to the school board where with the help of our school board rep. Lt. Baldwin, they tried to stop the project!
During the discussion it was discovered that 2/3 of the Academy has no sprinklers, and you can not get a truck around the left side of the building because of the new playground.
When this was presented to Mr. Sapia, he ignored it as it was obviously much more important to try to screw mr. Boyle, than to protect our children(a clear "life safety" issue!!!)
So the end result of these um.... gentlemen's efforts? No improvements to the field, a cleared area for the parking lot, but no work done to complete it because they snubbed the people who were volunteering their time, no fire access road, AND NO SPRINKLERS FOR 2/3 OF THE SCHOOL WHERE 483 OF OUR CHILDREN SPEND THEIR DAYS!
Oh, and as a side issue to all of this our smug, self-important Town Moderator, Mr. Polito tried to help these gentlemen by suing the town he moderates for to get rid of the fire hydrant too. He was thrown out of court for lack of standing! This means his ground for filing the suit were not even sufficient to warrant the judge looking at them, bye bye Frank!
But this didn't slow Mr. Sapia down one bit; He voluntarily offered sworn testimony to Mr. Polito to aid him in his suit against the Town. This was reported in the Eagle-Tribune on election day 2006! Understand this point please. When someone sues the town the selectmen are sworn to represent the town and act in IT'S best interests. Yet Mr. Sapia violated his oath to offer sworn testimony to THE OTHER SIDE IN A SUIT AGAINST THE TOWN!
This is the man who holds himself out as mr. consistency, as the defender of the town. Atkinsonians IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN THERE, HE ISNT IMPORTANT!
If Mr. Consistency is as concerned about "life safety" as he constantly states in selectmen's meetings then what has he done about the fire safety situation at the Atkinson Academy?
Last year; volunteers were offering to improve the little league field behind the Academy, build a parking lot for it to relieve the parking problems on Birch ln., and to build a fire access road from said parking lot down to the school. Mr. Sapia and Mr. Consentino, in an effort to screw Mr. Boyle who had agreed to put a live hydrant on woodlawn ave.(an area of the town with no water to fight fires) in return for not having to build a paved path through the woods with a 90 degree bend in it that will not even allow for the passage of our newest fire truck; went to the school board where with the help of our school board rep. Lt. Baldwin, they tried to stop the project!
During the discussion it was discovered that 2/3 of the Academy has no sprinklers, and you can not get a truck around the left side of the building because of the new playground.
When this was presented to Mr. Sapia, he ignored it as it was obviously much more important to try to screw mr. Boyle, than to protect our children(a clear "life safety" issue!!!)
So the end result of these um.... gentlemen's efforts? No improvements to the field, a cleared area for the parking lot, but no work done to complete it because they snubbed the people who were volunteering their time, no fire access road, AND NO SPRINKLERS FOR 2/3 OF THE SCHOOL WHERE 483 OF OUR CHILDREN SPEND THEIR DAYS!
Oh, and as a side issue to all of this our smug, self-important Town Moderator, Mr. Polito tried to help these gentlemen by suing the town he moderates for to get rid of the fire hydrant too. He was thrown out of court for lack of standing! This means his ground for filing the suit were not even sufficient to warrant the judge looking at them, bye bye Frank!
But this didn't slow Mr. Sapia down one bit; He voluntarily offered sworn testimony to Mr. Polito to aid him in his suit against the Town. This was reported in the Eagle-Tribune on election day 2006! Understand this point please. When someone sues the town the selectmen are sworn to represent the town and act in IT'S best interests. Yet Mr. Sapia violated his oath to offer sworn testimony to THE OTHER SIDE IN A SUIT AGAINST THE TOWN!
This is the man who holds himself out as mr. consistency, as the defender of the town. Atkinsonians IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN THERE, HE ISNT IMPORTANT!
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
