Well, the selectmen have a lot to do at Monday's meeting;
1.) They have to decide whether or not to spend $28,000 of OUR money on an 11th car for our 5 full time officers.
2.) They have to decide whether or not they are going to reprimand, discipline, or fire Phil over his lack of fiduciary management, misstatements to the board, and outright refusal to follow long established written town policy.
3.) There is an action item on the agenda; "application to contact town counsel" Never seen that before, it will be interesting to hear what that is all about.
Remember this board has reamed Teddy, for much less, than what Phil admitted to last week. The issue is very simple, and not as Phil put it, "what's the difference, you are paying him these days anyway."
The town had an established policy that states that sick days may only be used when you are sick. If you fail to use them in a year, the town, at the end of the year, will buy them back form you for 50% of their value. Like a bonus.
Lt. Baldwin probably did nothing wrong here, because his role was merely to ask for the sick time. It was his dept. heads responsibility to say; "i'm sorry, but town policy precludes me from allowing that. Contrary to what the chief implied, reserve and guard members DO get paid, and very well when they are on their summer camp. As a matter of fact, according to military. com, the difference between Lt. Baldwins Atkinson pay, and his military pay is about $144.00/week. Yet the chief has seen fit to have the taxpayers of Atkinson almost DOUBLE his military pay for the last six years, in contravention of town policy. This has cost the town approximately $6,400.00 in total. Even if Lt. Baldwin never got sick and traded all of his days at the end of the year for that period, the loss to the taxpayers is still $3,200.00
Is this right? Honest? Is this the kind of behavior we want in ANY dept. head?
Sunday, May 18
Thursday, May 15
Atkinson's recent past and ongiong legal woes...
This article is a reprint and intended to inform the public about the true costs of unsupervised employees.
This is intended to be merely informative, and a timeline for those who are uninformed. Below is a listing, along with highlights and results for most of the lawsuits against the town for the last 7 years or so. All of this is public information, and readily obtainable.
Acciard v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all watched this one play out. Here's the quick recap; Acciard brought Consentino up on ethics charges, Court agreed. Consentino violated Order was found in Contempt of Court. Consentino appealed Supreme Court, lost again. We paid for all of this. Consentino and selectmen made many comments at meetings both when Acciard was there, and not. Consentino called his company told them he was being investigated. Consentino sent him a letter from town threatening lawsuit, selectmen pled ignorance, did nothing. Verbal threats, Acciard sued. No resolution yet, still in process.
Federal Court Civil Rights Case- Grant v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all seen the meetings, where this drama played out. Selectmen shouting down Mrs. Grant as she read a statement, interupting her to tell her they don't interupt her, talking derogatorily about her after she has left the room. All of this culminating in the selectmen calling the police to evict Mrs. Grant, her husband and son from Town Hall, because she read a statement that they didn't like! It would have been so easy just to say Thank you, and goodbye, but no, that is not what our potentates do. This case has already cost the town $$$$$ in legal costs, and there are rumors floating around town of a settlement but this blog does not have confirmation or details, but watch out, when we do.
Petition to remove Childs and Sapia from office for violating their oaths of office. Allegations included improper use of force, selectmens refusal to deal publicly with elderly affairs in an attempt to circumvent Acciard's Court Order, the selectmens usurpation of the Library Trustees authority, the selectmen's purchase of an SUV without a vote. Sapia and Childs vote to pay Consentino's personal legal costs! Consentino was not on trial he was merely a witness who thought he needed legal advice, which was probably true in light of the fact that he claimed 5th ammendment protection from SELF-INCRIMINATION 31 TIMES IN A ROW! You can't claim protection from self- incrimination, unless you've COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE INCRIMINATED IN! However this was not the taxpayers responsibility to pay. Mrs. Grant represented herself,and failed to remove them.
Vietnam Honor Roll panel committee et al. v. Town of Atkinson, We all know the issues, we all know the selectmen refused to follow the 2005 town meeting vote, resulted in mediation agreement, rescinded by town wide vote in 2007.
Frank Polito v. Town of Atkinson, THIS ONE IS A BEAUT!!! Our selectmen did not like Mr. Boyle's offer to the fire chief of live hydrants, in exchange for requiring him to lay a 12' wide paved path with a 90 degree bend in it through the woods linking Winslow dr. to Woodlawn dr., They evidently got our town moderator to sue the town(after town counsel told them that they could not sue the town, as they represent the town) to FORCE Mr. Boyle to lay the path after he had already given the hydrant. Mr. Polito represented himself, and the court threw the case out for lack of standing! They said that as he lived three miles away from the site, it would not affect him, therefore he had no standing to sue. Still cost the town money, though.
Mark Acciard v. Phil Consentino Petition for injunctive relief; (3 cases in one, initial case+ contempt case+ Phil Supreme court appeal) Acciard filed this case asking the court to review the conflict of interest committee's decision that there was no conflict in a selectmen who is also police chief, deciding police issues. Court sided with Acciard, issued Court Order, directing Phil to recuse himself from any discussions of police or elderly affairs business. Phil continued to deal with these issues, Acciard brought him up on charges of contempt. Court issued contempt order, saying that if he continued to defy the court he could be placed in jail. Phil appealed to the Supreme Court(at taxpayer expense) and lost again. Acciard represented himself, and won 3 out of 3. Think about that for a moment, the Town's chief law enforcement officer found in contempt of court for willfully violating a Court Order!
William Baldwin v. Town of Atkinson, Now Lt. Baldwin sued the town because he didn't feel he was being promoted to Lt. fast enough. Claimed to have a contract guaranteeing him the Lt. spot, in reality it guaranteed consideration for the Lt. spot. It claimed Town had not paid tuition assistance, when the Town had cancelled check to prove otherwise. Case settled for nominal sum to avoid the cost of litigation.
William Baldwin had a second issue that almost erupted into a legal matter, and that was over his town pay when he was deployed to Boston, then Kuwait for the U.S.C.G. You can refer to the selectmen's minutes from for May 19, 2003, and you will see what I mean;
What hapenned was Baldwin was called up to active duty. Selectmen Boyle made a motion to advance him $5,900 to cover the difference between his military pay and his Sgt. Pay with the PD. The board asked Sgt. Baldwin to furnish his military Leave and Earnings statement, so that they could reconcile accounts. He refused, instead he furnished a commanders base pay letter, which only listed base pay, leaving out all his entitlements. This listed his pay as something on the order of $2,400/mo. when he was ACTUALLY receiving approx. $4,500/ mo. Chief Consentino was insistent that Sgt. Baldwin get the $511.51 per WEEK diff. claimed in the letter. The Board finally ordered Sgt. Baldwin to either give them the LES or return the $5,900 advance. The LES showed a difference of approx. $450./mo. The advance the Board gave him would have covered him for 14 months! There were 8 stories in the Eagle-Tribune during this time, about how the board was "nickle and diming" him, and how his wife and family were sufferring. No mention of the fact that for the first 3 months of his deployment he was stationed in Boston and able to travel home. No mention of his and Consentino's efforts to get him an extra $2,000/mo. over and above what he deserved.
Does this sound honest and forthright to you? Also check out the minutes of June 9, 2003.
Officer Gary Lorden & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This complaint was before the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, alleging improper conduct, retribution, and threats from the police chief towards officer Lorden. Case was settled, and officer Lorden received compensation for his losses.
Officer Micheal Rivera & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This case was also before the PELRB. Oficer Rivera was one of the organizers of the Union. After Chief was notified Officer rivera received numerous write ups, notably for failing to meet his quota of tickets while on 12am -8am shift. (officer Baldwin even testified that there has never been a quota). He was then notified that he would not receive his permanent status with Atkinson PD. He lsot because he was only probationary, but then won on appeal, case was settled, money was paid.
And them there is the Dale Childs matter; Mrs. Childs filed a complaint with Police standards and training, complaining that Phil worked too many hours to be part-time, and he was not qualified to be full-time. Phil sent officer Anderson over to Mrs. Childs house to take photos of the Hampstead Animal Control Car in her driveway. He then sent a Letter, On official staionary, signed "Chief Phil v. Consentino", to the Hampstead Board of Selectmen about Mrs. Childs, ciritcal of her use of the vehicle. When this was written about in the Eagle-Tribune, he claimed he was investigating her as "Phil Consentino, Resident, not Phil Consentino, Chief", but he signed the official letter, Chief.
Does anyone see a common thread here?
All of these cases happened allegedly due to official misconduct on the part of the Chief.
All cost this town money in legal fees, court costs, settlement costs, increased insurance premiums, and more.
It is time to end this madness. How much should one man's ego cost the town?
This is intended to be merely informative, and a timeline for those who are uninformed. Below is a listing, along with highlights and results for most of the lawsuits against the town for the last 7 years or so. All of this is public information, and readily obtainable.
Acciard v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all watched this one play out. Here's the quick recap; Acciard brought Consentino up on ethics charges, Court agreed. Consentino violated Order was found in Contempt of Court. Consentino appealed Supreme Court, lost again. We paid for all of this. Consentino and selectmen made many comments at meetings both when Acciard was there, and not. Consentino called his company told them he was being investigated. Consentino sent him a letter from town threatening lawsuit, selectmen pled ignorance, did nothing. Verbal threats, Acciard sued. No resolution yet, still in process.
Federal Court Civil Rights Case- Grant v. Town of Atkinson, Consentino, Sapia, et al.
We have all seen the meetings, where this drama played out. Selectmen shouting down Mrs. Grant as she read a statement, interupting her to tell her they don't interupt her, talking derogatorily about her after she has left the room. All of this culminating in the selectmen calling the police to evict Mrs. Grant, her husband and son from Town Hall, because she read a statement that they didn't like! It would have been so easy just to say Thank you, and goodbye, but no, that is not what our potentates do. This case has already cost the town $$$$$ in legal costs, and there are rumors floating around town of a settlement but this blog does not have confirmation or details, but watch out, when we do.
Petition to remove Childs and Sapia from office for violating their oaths of office. Allegations included improper use of force, selectmens refusal to deal publicly with elderly affairs in an attempt to circumvent Acciard's Court Order, the selectmens usurpation of the Library Trustees authority, the selectmen's purchase of an SUV without a vote. Sapia and Childs vote to pay Consentino's personal legal costs! Consentino was not on trial he was merely a witness who thought he needed legal advice, which was probably true in light of the fact that he claimed 5th ammendment protection from SELF-INCRIMINATION 31 TIMES IN A ROW! You can't claim protection from self- incrimination, unless you've COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE INCRIMINATED IN! However this was not the taxpayers responsibility to pay. Mrs. Grant represented herself,and failed to remove them.
Vietnam Honor Roll panel committee et al. v. Town of Atkinson, We all know the issues, we all know the selectmen refused to follow the 2005 town meeting vote, resulted in mediation agreement, rescinded by town wide vote in 2007.
Frank Polito v. Town of Atkinson, THIS ONE IS A BEAUT!!! Our selectmen did not like Mr. Boyle's offer to the fire chief of live hydrants, in exchange for requiring him to lay a 12' wide paved path with a 90 degree bend in it through the woods linking Winslow dr. to Woodlawn dr., They evidently got our town moderator to sue the town(after town counsel told them that they could not sue the town, as they represent the town) to FORCE Mr. Boyle to lay the path after he had already given the hydrant. Mr. Polito represented himself, and the court threw the case out for lack of standing! They said that as he lived three miles away from the site, it would not affect him, therefore he had no standing to sue. Still cost the town money, though.
Mark Acciard v. Phil Consentino Petition for injunctive relief; (3 cases in one, initial case+ contempt case+ Phil Supreme court appeal) Acciard filed this case asking the court to review the conflict of interest committee's decision that there was no conflict in a selectmen who is also police chief, deciding police issues. Court sided with Acciard, issued Court Order, directing Phil to recuse himself from any discussions of police or elderly affairs business. Phil continued to deal with these issues, Acciard brought him up on charges of contempt. Court issued contempt order, saying that if he continued to defy the court he could be placed in jail. Phil appealed to the Supreme Court(at taxpayer expense) and lost again. Acciard represented himself, and won 3 out of 3. Think about that for a moment, the Town's chief law enforcement officer found in contempt of court for willfully violating a Court Order!
William Baldwin v. Town of Atkinson, Now Lt. Baldwin sued the town because he didn't feel he was being promoted to Lt. fast enough. Claimed to have a contract guaranteeing him the Lt. spot, in reality it guaranteed consideration for the Lt. spot. It claimed Town had not paid tuition assistance, when the Town had cancelled check to prove otherwise. Case settled for nominal sum to avoid the cost of litigation.
William Baldwin had a second issue that almost erupted into a legal matter, and that was over his town pay when he was deployed to Boston, then Kuwait for the U.S.C.G. You can refer to the selectmen's minutes from for May 19, 2003, and you will see what I mean;
What hapenned was Baldwin was called up to active duty. Selectmen Boyle made a motion to advance him $5,900 to cover the difference between his military pay and his Sgt. Pay with the PD. The board asked Sgt. Baldwin to furnish his military Leave and Earnings statement, so that they could reconcile accounts. He refused, instead he furnished a commanders base pay letter, which only listed base pay, leaving out all his entitlements. This listed his pay as something on the order of $2,400/mo. when he was ACTUALLY receiving approx. $4,500/ mo. Chief Consentino was insistent that Sgt. Baldwin get the $511.51 per WEEK diff. claimed in the letter. The Board finally ordered Sgt. Baldwin to either give them the LES or return the $5,900 advance. The LES showed a difference of approx. $450./mo. The advance the Board gave him would have covered him for 14 months! There were 8 stories in the Eagle-Tribune during this time, about how the board was "nickle and diming" him, and how his wife and family were sufferring. No mention of the fact that for the first 3 months of his deployment he was stationed in Boston and able to travel home. No mention of his and Consentino's efforts to get him an extra $2,000/mo. over and above what he deserved.
Does this sound honest and forthright to you? Also check out the minutes of June 9, 2003.
Officer Gary Lorden & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This complaint was before the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, alleging improper conduct, retribution, and threats from the police chief towards officer Lorden. Case was settled, and officer Lorden received compensation for his losses.
Officer Micheal Rivera & IBPO v. Town of Atkinson, This case was also before the PELRB. Oficer Rivera was one of the organizers of the Union. After Chief was notified Officer rivera received numerous write ups, notably for failing to meet his quota of tickets while on 12am -8am shift. (officer Baldwin even testified that there has never been a quota). He was then notified that he would not receive his permanent status with Atkinson PD. He lsot because he was only probationary, but then won on appeal, case was settled, money was paid.
And them there is the Dale Childs matter; Mrs. Childs filed a complaint with Police standards and training, complaining that Phil worked too many hours to be part-time, and he was not qualified to be full-time. Phil sent officer Anderson over to Mrs. Childs house to take photos of the Hampstead Animal Control Car in her driveway. He then sent a Letter, On official staionary, signed "Chief Phil v. Consentino", to the Hampstead Board of Selectmen about Mrs. Childs, ciritcal of her use of the vehicle. When this was written about in the Eagle-Tribune, he claimed he was investigating her as "Phil Consentino, Resident, not Phil Consentino, Chief", but he signed the official letter, Chief.
Does anyone see a common thread here?
All of these cases happened allegedly due to official misconduct on the part of the Chief.
All cost this town money in legal fees, court costs, settlement costs, increased insurance premiums, and more.
It is time to end this madness. How much should one man's ego cost the town?
Wednesday, May 14
Did the chief admit to falsifying Sick pay vouchers?
The selectmen's workshop on Monday night held many revelations. One was that chief Consentino admitted "for the last 6 years" submitting sick pay vouchers for Lt. Baldwin when he does his Coast Guard Summer Camp, for 2 weeks every summer. This evidently fraudulent document submission troubles many who heard it.
Paul Sullivan read the Town's policy on sick pay, right from the employee handbook. This policy has been in place since chief was a selectmen, and yet he admits ignoring it. The policy is that the Town can not condone people taking sick pay if they are not sick, simple, right? What would happen if in the winter Lt. Baldwin actually did get sick and couldn't come into work? Does anyone believe that his SALARY is going to be docked for that day, because he has no sick time left?
Chief made a very compelling but false case for why his protege needs this time, because "it is not fair for him to not get paid while he is defending the country",
Well, Phil, summer camp is just that "camp"!, Training, meetings, job orientation to teach you everything you forgot since your last "summer camp"!, and he gets PAID VERY WELL FOR THIS!
This is from the pay charts at military.com;
An e-7 with 12 years of service is earning $3,600/mo. in BASE PAY! That does not include entitlements. ie: rations pay, quarters allowance, VHA, COLA, Clothing allowance, separation pay, combat theatre pay(if that is the case). An E-7 with that amount of service, should be earning $2045.00 for that two weeks.
Set that against the $1,169.00/week that Lt. Baldwin makes in Atkinson. And he is leaving our town to go do training, and taking a pay cut of $144.00/week!
BUT NO.... He gets PAID BY THE TOWN FOR THESE TWO WEEKS AS WELL! This is your tax dollars at work.... According to the chief(because he has been signing and submitting these vouchers) He has been getting his $1,169.00 from the town PLUS his $1,022.50 from the military! WOW! WHAT A RACKET! Where I work this would be called FRAUD! and I would be fired if I had the basic level of dishonesty necessary to pull it off, not to mention the arrogance to tell the entire town about it on television!
Our spendthrift police chief also went on and on about how the town screwed the erstwhile Lt. over military pay 4 years ago, leaving the poor destitute Lt. to fight for his compensation. it was ALL False!
Got to http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/ and click on the selectmen's minutes form June 9,2003 if you don't believe me. Here is what happened, you judge for yourself who was right and who was trying to scam the town;
In March or April The Sgt. Baldwin received notice he would be deployed. He asked if the town would do anything for him. Then Selectmen Boyle assured him that the Town would pay the difference between his town pay and his military pay, and that he would not lose any money. That was the honorable and fair thing to do.
Before Sgt. Baldwin was deployed, the Town, at Mr. Boyle's behest, ADVANCED him $5,900.00, or 6 weeks pay so that his family would not suffer. The town directed him to furnish them with a copy of his Military Leave and Earnings Statement, so that they could calculate the difference between the two pay rates. Sgt. Baldwin, instead furnished the town with a commanders base pay letter, which only states his base pay and not all of his allowances, or extra pay. The town again asked for the leave and earnings statement. Sgt. Baldwin refused. Chief Consentino harangued the selectmen week after week, claiming they were "nickle and diming" the Sgt. Again, read the minutes through the summer of 2003, or look in the back issues of the Eagle Tribune for the stories about how his family was destitute, because of the town, most most especially mr.Boyle's lack of compassion.
Here is the issue;
Sgt. Baldwins town pay at the time was approximately $4,228.00/ mo.
Commanders base pay letter showed a base pay letter showed a base pay of only $2,400.00/mo. or so.
The difference that Sgt. Baldwin was in effect trying to obtain, and chief was lobbying for was $511.51/wk. or $2,199.50/mo. See Selectmen's minutes May 19, 2003
When the LES was obtained it showed an ACTUAL DIFFERENCE in pay of only about $450.00/ MONTH!
This means that the chief and the Sgt. were trying to obtain from the town an extra $1,650.00 per month of our tax dollars, again in the private sector this would be called fraud, and would be grounds for firing!
Remember that through all of this the Sgt. was being paid by the military, his $4,500/mo or so, PLUS he had been advanced $5,900.00 from the town.
This frivolous, and dishonest philandering of tax dollars must stop, and it is the job of the selectmen to not only put a stop to it, but to FIRE those who are dishonest enough to do it!
Paul Sullivan read the Town's policy on sick pay, right from the employee handbook. This policy has been in place since chief was a selectmen, and yet he admits ignoring it. The policy is that the Town can not condone people taking sick pay if they are not sick, simple, right? What would happen if in the winter Lt. Baldwin actually did get sick and couldn't come into work? Does anyone believe that his SALARY is going to be docked for that day, because he has no sick time left?
Chief made a very compelling but false case for why his protege needs this time, because "it is not fair for him to not get paid while he is defending the country",
Well, Phil, summer camp is just that "camp"!, Training, meetings, job orientation to teach you everything you forgot since your last "summer camp"!, and he gets PAID VERY WELL FOR THIS!
This is from the pay charts at military.com;
An e-7 with 12 years of service is earning $3,600/mo. in BASE PAY! That does not include entitlements. ie: rations pay, quarters allowance, VHA, COLA, Clothing allowance, separation pay, combat theatre pay(if that is the case). An E-7 with that amount of service, should be earning $2045.00 for that two weeks.
Set that against the $1,169.00/week that Lt. Baldwin makes in Atkinson. And he is leaving our town to go do training, and taking a pay cut of $144.00/week!
BUT NO.... He gets PAID BY THE TOWN FOR THESE TWO WEEKS AS WELL! This is your tax dollars at work.... According to the chief(because he has been signing and submitting these vouchers) He has been getting his $1,169.00 from the town PLUS his $1,022.50 from the military! WOW! WHAT A RACKET! Where I work this would be called FRAUD! and I would be fired if I had the basic level of dishonesty necessary to pull it off, not to mention the arrogance to tell the entire town about it on television!
Our spendthrift police chief also went on and on about how the town screwed the erstwhile Lt. over military pay 4 years ago, leaving the poor destitute Lt. to fight for his compensation. it was ALL False!
Got to http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/ and click on the selectmen's minutes form June 9,2003 if you don't believe me. Here is what happened, you judge for yourself who was right and who was trying to scam the town;
In March or April The Sgt. Baldwin received notice he would be deployed. He asked if the town would do anything for him. Then Selectmen Boyle assured him that the Town would pay the difference between his town pay and his military pay, and that he would not lose any money. That was the honorable and fair thing to do.
Before Sgt. Baldwin was deployed, the Town, at Mr. Boyle's behest, ADVANCED him $5,900.00, or 6 weeks pay so that his family would not suffer. The town directed him to furnish them with a copy of his Military Leave and Earnings Statement, so that they could calculate the difference between the two pay rates. Sgt. Baldwin, instead furnished the town with a commanders base pay letter, which only states his base pay and not all of his allowances, or extra pay. The town again asked for the leave and earnings statement. Sgt. Baldwin refused. Chief Consentino harangued the selectmen week after week, claiming they were "nickle and diming" the Sgt. Again, read the minutes through the summer of 2003, or look in the back issues of the Eagle Tribune for the stories about how his family was destitute, because of the town, most most especially mr.Boyle's lack of compassion.
Here is the issue;
Sgt. Baldwins town pay at the time was approximately $4,228.00/ mo.
Commanders base pay letter showed a base pay letter showed a base pay of only $2,400.00/mo. or so.
The difference that Sgt. Baldwin was in effect trying to obtain, and chief was lobbying for was $511.51/wk. or $2,199.50/mo. See Selectmen's minutes May 19, 2003
When the LES was obtained it showed an ACTUAL DIFFERENCE in pay of only about $450.00/ MONTH!
This means that the chief and the Sgt. were trying to obtain from the town an extra $1,650.00 per month of our tax dollars, again in the private sector this would be called fraud, and would be grounds for firing!
Remember that through all of this the Sgt. was being paid by the military, his $4,500/mo or so, PLUS he had been advanced $5,900.00 from the town.
This frivolous, and dishonest philandering of tax dollars must stop, and it is the job of the selectmen to not only put a stop to it, but to FIRE those who are dishonest enough to do it!
Tuesday, May 13
PLEASURE VEHICLES? BOUGHT BY US? FOR THEM?
Can anyone tell me why We the Taxpayers are buying "pleasure vehicles" for the personal use of the chief of police and his family, and treasured assistants?
These were the chief's own words Monday night.
Can anyone tell me how BOTH the Durango, AND the Mercury get from the chief's driveway at night, to the police station during the day?
How about this one. WHEN did WE authorize Lt. Baldwin to have a take home car, and the chief to have TWO?
HOw about why do we NEED a new vehicle when we already have 10? We have one patrol officer on each shift, and we have 10 vehicles, and why? because our Obersturmfurher has assigned each one a purpose, and, never shall it be used for another! This on is a cruiser! That one is only for Details! This one is only for the detective!, Those three are only for the elderly!
We have 10 vehicles currently, and 6 of them have been acquired since 2005! They are new! when does enough become enough?
No other town have two vehicles for EVERY FULL TIME OFFICER!
Hampstead, which is 40% larger uses $10,000 less in Gas. Why?
Why is no one asking these questions?
Getting these vehicles cheap is only a virtue, if their acquisition saves the town from buying a new vehicle. But no, in Atkinson we get the free vehicles, ANd buy the new ones too. It boggles the mind.
But we are grateful to our chief for finally admitting that he bought two vehicles that are not fit to be police vehicles, so why dont we get rid of those two, and get him his new cruiser, that way we shave the size of the fleet by one vehicle in the process.
But what happened to how those two cars were bought? The Durango was donated by Rockingham Dodge, and we were told by the chief that we NEEDED this as a DARE truck because the old DARE truck was not serviceable, had too many miles, etc. The Mercury, we HAD to buy to replace the 1993 Chrysler that we HAD to buy after the voters turned down a new elderly car. Chief told us that he NEEDED a surveillance vehicle. 6 months later it wasnt being used for surveillance, and it got an elderly sign on the door! He got his elderly car even though the voters said no! When they totalled it, he NEEDED to have it replaced, Now it is not fit to be a police vehicle! MAKE UP YOUR MIND! is it a police vehicle or not?
How about for once we get some honesty out of this subject?
These were the chief's own words Monday night.
Can anyone tell me how BOTH the Durango, AND the Mercury get from the chief's driveway at night, to the police station during the day?
How about this one. WHEN did WE authorize Lt. Baldwin to have a take home car, and the chief to have TWO?
HOw about why do we NEED a new vehicle when we already have 10? We have one patrol officer on each shift, and we have 10 vehicles, and why? because our Obersturmfurher has assigned each one a purpose, and, never shall it be used for another! This on is a cruiser! That one is only for Details! This one is only for the detective!, Those three are only for the elderly!
We have 10 vehicles currently, and 6 of them have been acquired since 2005! They are new! when does enough become enough?
No other town have two vehicles for EVERY FULL TIME OFFICER!
Hampstead, which is 40% larger uses $10,000 less in Gas. Why?
Why is no one asking these questions?
Getting these vehicles cheap is only a virtue, if their acquisition saves the town from buying a new vehicle. But no, in Atkinson we get the free vehicles, ANd buy the new ones too. It boggles the mind.
But we are grateful to our chief for finally admitting that he bought two vehicles that are not fit to be police vehicles, so why dont we get rid of those two, and get him his new cruiser, that way we shave the size of the fleet by one vehicle in the process.
But what happened to how those two cars were bought? The Durango was donated by Rockingham Dodge, and we were told by the chief that we NEEDED this as a DARE truck because the old DARE truck was not serviceable, had too many miles, etc. The Mercury, we HAD to buy to replace the 1993 Chrysler that we HAD to buy after the voters turned down a new elderly car. Chief told us that he NEEDED a surveillance vehicle. 6 months later it wasnt being used for surveillance, and it got an elderly sign on the door! He got his elderly car even though the voters said no! When they totalled it, he NEEDED to have it replaced, Now it is not fit to be a police vehicle! MAKE UP YOUR MIND! is it a police vehicle or not?
How about for once we get some honesty out of this subject?
Monday, May 12
Selectmen Workshop TONIGHT!
One of the topics on this workshop is "police vehicle allocation"!
As many of you know, this subject has been one of contention for 5 years now, ever since chief Consentino started dramatically increasing the size of the police fleet shortly after winning the selectmen's seat.
We currently have 4 fewer officers than we had in 2003, yet we have 4 MORE vehicles! And Our empire building police chief WANTS ANOTHER ONE!
Here is the allocation;
We have TWO elderly affairs taxis
One wheelchair van
The CHIEFS PERSONAL GREEN MERCURY
the CHIEFS PERSONAL DURANGO
The LT's PERSONAL CAR
The DETECTIVE'S PERSONAL CAR(this one he does not take home, the others do!)
ONE SUV(purchased without voter or selectmen input)
THREE Cruisers!
All for the ONE patrol officer on any given shift!
In these days of $3.50/gal. gas, why are the taxpayers of Atkinson paying for the Lt. to have a take home car, he only lives 1/2 a mile from the station! And our chief to have TWO TAKE HOME VEHICLES?
And when did the selectmen AUTHORIZE him to have a SECOND take home vehicle?
And why are we paying for him to use his OFFICIAL car to take his dog grocery shopping?
And why are we paying for our Lt. to take his OFFICIAL vehicle to his part time jobs in Plaistow, Kingston, or Boston?
It appears that our hard earned money is paying the personal gasoline bills of our police administration, WHY SELECTMEN?
As many of you know, this subject has been one of contention for 5 years now, ever since chief Consentino started dramatically increasing the size of the police fleet shortly after winning the selectmen's seat.
We currently have 4 fewer officers than we had in 2003, yet we have 4 MORE vehicles! And Our empire building police chief WANTS ANOTHER ONE!
Here is the allocation;
We have TWO elderly affairs taxis
One wheelchair van
The CHIEFS PERSONAL GREEN MERCURY
the CHIEFS PERSONAL DURANGO
The LT's PERSONAL CAR
The DETECTIVE'S PERSONAL CAR(this one he does not take home, the others do!)
ONE SUV(purchased without voter or selectmen input)
THREE Cruisers!
All for the ONE patrol officer on any given shift!
In these days of $3.50/gal. gas, why are the taxpayers of Atkinson paying for the Lt. to have a take home car, he only lives 1/2 a mile from the station! And our chief to have TWO TAKE HOME VEHICLES?
And when did the selectmen AUTHORIZE him to have a SECOND take home vehicle?
And why are we paying for him to use his OFFICIAL car to take his dog grocery shopping?
And why are we paying for our Lt. to take his OFFICIAL vehicle to his part time jobs in Plaistow, Kingston, or Boston?
It appears that our hard earned money is paying the personal gasoline bills of our police administration, WHY SELECTMEN?
Wednesday, May 7
Public Notice for all fellow Atkinsonians
ATTENTION, ATKINSON RESIDENTS
This Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m. at Dyke Auditorium at Atkinson Academy, there will be a Public Hearing concerning the Hampstead Area Water Company’s (HAWC) application to drill 5 additional bedrock wells in Atkinson so as to pump out and sell AN ADDITIONAL 648,000 GALLONS PER DAY of Atkinson groundwater.
Two of those new wells will go on the grounds of the Atkinson Country Club (which already uses many, many millions of gallons during the summer to water its golf course), while another well will go in the center of town on the island in the wetlands east of Wright Farm Condominiums. Two more wells will go on Settlers Ridge south of the Lexington Commons Condominiums.
The Hampstead Area Water Company already pumps and sells groundwater to 11 towns: Atkinson, Chester, Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem and Sandown.
Almost two-thirds of our Atkinson homes rely soley on private wells while Wright Farm Condominium s and the Commons condominiums each have their own private community well/ water system. Any further drainage and lowering of our ground water table can have disasterous effects on our homes’ and condominiums’ future water supplies and Atkinsonians having adequate water for normal future needs.
Atkinsonians being serviced by HAWC should realize that they also stand to lose from any future water shortage caused by more of Atkinson’s limited water being shipped out to other towns. Salem is right on our eastern border, is already experiencing a water shortage, and has noticed the State about its serious water shortages.
N.H. law requires that our Board of Selectmen hold a public hearing to listen to the comments and feelings of our townspeople before the Board advises the state (DES) on whether the townspeople support or opposes HAWC’s request to put in more wells and pump out and sell for private profit, an additional 648,000 gallons per day of our limited Atkinson ground water.
Please try to attend this important public hearing and express your feelings on HAWC’s application so the selectmen can adequately and accurately represent the townpeople’s position on HAWC’s new application.
This Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m. at Dyke Auditorium at Atkinson Academy, there will be a Public Hearing concerning the Hampstead Area Water Company’s (HAWC) application to drill 5 additional bedrock wells in Atkinson so as to pump out and sell AN ADDITIONAL 648,000 GALLONS PER DAY of Atkinson groundwater.
Two of those new wells will go on the grounds of the Atkinson Country Club (which already uses many, many millions of gallons during the summer to water its golf course), while another well will go in the center of town on the island in the wetlands east of Wright Farm Condominiums. Two more wells will go on Settlers Ridge south of the Lexington Commons Condominiums.
The Hampstead Area Water Company already pumps and sells groundwater to 11 towns: Atkinson, Chester, Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem and Sandown.
Almost two-thirds of our Atkinson homes rely soley on private wells while Wright Farm Condominium s and the Commons condominiums each have their own private community well/ water system. Any further drainage and lowering of our ground water table can have disasterous effects on our homes’ and condominiums’ future water supplies and Atkinsonians having adequate water for normal future needs.
Atkinsonians being serviced by HAWC should realize that they also stand to lose from any future water shortage caused by more of Atkinson’s limited water being shipped out to other towns. Salem is right on our eastern border, is already experiencing a water shortage, and has noticed the State about its serious water shortages.
N.H. law requires that our Board of Selectmen hold a public hearing to listen to the comments and feelings of our townspeople before the Board advises the state (DES) on whether the townspeople support or opposes HAWC’s request to put in more wells and pump out and sell for private profit, an additional 648,000 gallons per day of our limited Atkinson ground water.
Please try to attend this important public hearing and express your feelings on HAWC’s application so the selectmen can adequately and accurately represent the townpeople’s position on HAWC’s new application.
Be Careful What You Scheme For...
This is from the NH Insider website, written by Ed Naile, Director of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.
The poignant side to this is that our state rep, Jim Garrity, serves on the Right to know commission, and our board of selectmen has been actively engaged in circumventing this law for the last four years!
Read on fellow Townspeople...
Here is how the deal works regarding House Bill 1408 which is on the fast track to do two things:
1. Gut RSA 91-A - The Right To Know Law.
2. Become the largest membership drive The Coalition of NH Taxpayers ever had.
Some basics about RSA 91-A:
If you ask for public documents from an unwilling public body they play several cards. One is to delay the handing over of the documents until AFTER they may be helpful to the taxpayer requesting them.
Should you go to court, after weeks or months of asking for documents, they will magically appear the day before the hearing. With a straight face town or school counsel will tell a judge that they have already complied with the law so there is no case to be heard. I have had this happen in court more often than not. It is a standard technique of municipal counsel. Attorney Paul Apple of Upton and Hatfield used this ploy against The Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers in March of 2007. Attorney Matt Upton of the same firm tried this on me in 2005. Attorney Bob Bossie of Manchester used this trick in 1991 against me in Deering regarding bid-rigged bridge plans. It is standard operating procedure.
You have to remember, this is New Hampshire and we have one of the worst superior court systems in the country. It is an official laughing stock of self serving nit wits in black dress up. No brag, just fact. Municipal lawyers know there is no real penalty for hiding documents.
Except.
The dilemma for the newly formed Right to Know Commission which has been trying over the past five years to gut 91-A is, now that since withholding documents is for the most part not a problem, how to allow secret meetings. This is a problem because without the sacred secret meeting, many tax and spend municipal boards could not function the way they do now. Without bid rigging, selecting certain like-minded friends for positions, or cutting deals behind the backs of other people on the board, what fun would it be to hold office?
The Right to Know Commission tried, unsuccessfully, with HB 377 and HB 626 to actually write into the law ways for secret meeting to be held. They had language which said “outside communications” as they refer to them, can be held if someone keeps notes and lets the next meeting know what they were scheming. That blew up in their faces. What if the next meeting is an “outside communication” and the one after that?
Now in HB 1408 they just slide in some new language regarding the much anticipated “Outside Communications.” In a new paragraph, “outside communications” are allowed as long as they do not circumvent the “spirit of the law.”
This is really laughable and sad at the same time.
So now you catch a school board having a secret meeting such as the Strafford School Board did at a restaurant named Cassidy’s back in March. They met and drafted a letter to the community to support the $11.2 million dollar school that failed before and after this not so secret, secret meeting.
I had their secret e-mail thanking everyone for coming shortly after it was sent. CNHT winds up several of these emails every election cycle and always will. When you hide something from other members of a board they often get cranky and send evidence to the only organization in NH that will help - CNHT.
Here is why the RTKC wants to get “outside communications” in the statute BEFORE any language about penalties is adopted.
Say we catch, as we surely will, a school board meeting about, say, a certain engineer to hire for a new addition. They hold the meeting at “Cassidy’s” again and get caught by another potential bidder. All they have to do is say they had no idea they were “circumventing the spirit of the law.” A taxpayer bringing the case would have to prove otherwise, such as an admission, or letter saying “let’s circumvent the spirit of the law.” This is next to impossible.
If you think this is not going to happen then you have only to wait.
It will not be long.
But there is a new way to punish “outside communications” and it will be “outside the box” not in court.
Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 09:48AM by Registered CommenterEd Naile
The poignant side to this is that our state rep, Jim Garrity, serves on the Right to know commission, and our board of selectmen has been actively engaged in circumventing this law for the last four years!
Read on fellow Townspeople...
Here is how the deal works regarding House Bill 1408 which is on the fast track to do two things:
1. Gut RSA 91-A - The Right To Know Law.
2. Become the largest membership drive The Coalition of NH Taxpayers ever had.
Some basics about RSA 91-A:
If you ask for public documents from an unwilling public body they play several cards. One is to delay the handing over of the documents until AFTER they may be helpful to the taxpayer requesting them.
Should you go to court, after weeks or months of asking for documents, they will magically appear the day before the hearing. With a straight face town or school counsel will tell a judge that they have already complied with the law so there is no case to be heard. I have had this happen in court more often than not. It is a standard technique of municipal counsel. Attorney Paul Apple of Upton and Hatfield used this ploy against The Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers in March of 2007. Attorney Matt Upton of the same firm tried this on me in 2005. Attorney Bob Bossie of Manchester used this trick in 1991 against me in Deering regarding bid-rigged bridge plans. It is standard operating procedure.
You have to remember, this is New Hampshire and we have one of the worst superior court systems in the country. It is an official laughing stock of self serving nit wits in black dress up. No brag, just fact. Municipal lawyers know there is no real penalty for hiding documents.
Except.
The dilemma for the newly formed Right to Know Commission which has been trying over the past five years to gut 91-A is, now that since withholding documents is for the most part not a problem, how to allow secret meetings. This is a problem because without the sacred secret meeting, many tax and spend municipal boards could not function the way they do now. Without bid rigging, selecting certain like-minded friends for positions, or cutting deals behind the backs of other people on the board, what fun would it be to hold office?
The Right to Know Commission tried, unsuccessfully, with HB 377 and HB 626 to actually write into the law ways for secret meeting to be held. They had language which said “outside communications” as they refer to them, can be held if someone keeps notes and lets the next meeting know what they were scheming. That blew up in their faces. What if the next meeting is an “outside communication” and the one after that?
Now in HB 1408 they just slide in some new language regarding the much anticipated “Outside Communications.” In a new paragraph, “outside communications” are allowed as long as they do not circumvent the “spirit of the law.”
This is really laughable and sad at the same time.
So now you catch a school board having a secret meeting such as the Strafford School Board did at a restaurant named Cassidy’s back in March. They met and drafted a letter to the community to support the $11.2 million dollar school that failed before and after this not so secret, secret meeting.
I had their secret e-mail thanking everyone for coming shortly after it was sent. CNHT winds up several of these emails every election cycle and always will. When you hide something from other members of a board they often get cranky and send evidence to the only organization in NH that will help - CNHT.
Here is why the RTKC wants to get “outside communications” in the statute BEFORE any language about penalties is adopted.
Say we catch, as we surely will, a school board meeting about, say, a certain engineer to hire for a new addition. They hold the meeting at “Cassidy’s” again and get caught by another potential bidder. All they have to do is say they had no idea they were “circumventing the spirit of the law.” A taxpayer bringing the case would have to prove otherwise, such as an admission, or letter saying “let’s circumvent the spirit of the law.” This is next to impossible.
If you think this is not going to happen then you have only to wait.
It will not be long.
But there is a new way to punish “outside communications” and it will be “outside the box” not in court.
Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 09:48AM by Registered CommenterEd Naile
Tuesday, May 6
Here is what went on at selectmen's meeting
Anonymous said...
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
General Blog readers:
This is the presentation that Mr. Gary Brownfield presented to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen last night. It is within the right of all taxpayers to ask, and denied by our past and present board. This is an example of what this board will do to you, if you try to exercise your rights under the law. This is their mode of operation and unless we as taxpayers do something to stop them, your rights will be denied also. (They will force you into court at your expense to enforce your rights)
This is the board of selectmen you voted into office. They cater to “special interest” groups, (attend tomorrow nights public hearing on Mr. Lewis’s water withdrawal from the Atkinson’s aquifer petition to the State) while superceding your rights to stop the withdrawal. (Per special town meeting vote at taxpayers expense last year) This board is trying to subvert your rights. These men are not protecting you rights. It’s time to “take this corruption” out of office.
Your comments please.
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
G.D. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to G.D. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues:
1. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
TAXPAYERS: IT’S OVERDUE TO EJECT THESE MEN FROM OFFICE AND TAKE OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT BACK.
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
General Blog readers:
This is the presentation that Mr. Gary Brownfield presented to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen last night. It is within the right of all taxpayers to ask, and denied by our past and present board. This is an example of what this board will do to you, if you try to exercise your rights under the law. This is their mode of operation and unless we as taxpayers do something to stop them, your rights will be denied also. (They will force you into court at your expense to enforce your rights)
This is the board of selectmen you voted into office. They cater to “special interest” groups, (attend tomorrow nights public hearing on Mr. Lewis’s water withdrawal from the Atkinson’s aquifer petition to the State) while superceding your rights to stop the withdrawal. (Per special town meeting vote at taxpayers expense last year) This board is trying to subvert your rights. These men are not protecting you rights. It’s time to “take this corruption” out of office.
Your comments please.
Selectmen’s Meeting May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Board Members: Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs, Bill Friel
G.D. Brownfield’s presentation to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen:
I am to speak with alacrity, as it is my understanding that you have limited me to only 10 minutes to discuss the following issues:
1. Denial by the Board of Selectmen of required Right to Know information.
2. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson signed by over 150 property owners.
Given the 10-minute “constriction” this board forced upon me, I will address the denial of Right to Know issues. I will begin by reading my presentation. Afterwards I will seek specific answers to my questions.
Sirs,
On April 14 of this year, I presented a Request to Know letter to the Chairman of this Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Atkinson Taxpayers Committee. A second letter was presented on April 23rd and again on May 2nd along with a copy of the Right to Know Law. I asked this copy of the Right to Know Law to be distributed to each selectman. Did you gentlemen receive, read and understand all the information presented?
So we assume that you are aware that you can be held individually and collectively responsible for not complying with the law.
To date, I have not received any information regarding my RIGHT TO KNOW requests for:
1. The minutes of the meeting between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sapia regarding their discussion of Town counsel’s opinion as to the legality of removing atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs prior to our last election. (THIS CONSTITUES A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE)
2. The minutes of the meeting between selectmen regarding your response to Mr. Artus’s 14 questions when he appeared in front of the board. You provided only four (weak and incomplete) responses to the 14 questions.
As you know, the law requires that all minutes must be written within 72 hours and posted FREE OF CHARGE within 144 hours (6 days). To date, that information is not available and has not been given to me.
My questions to you tonight are:
1. Why are the minutes not approved and posted within the legal requirements?
2. Why is this board not meeting its legal requirements?
3. Why have I not received my required answers to my committee’s questions under the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW?
4. When will I have ALL the answers to my questions?
5. When is this board going to stop breaking the laws of this state and . . .
6. When is this board going to meet its legal responsibilities in answering RTK requests and stop wasting the taxpayers time and money?
7. What policy is this board going to put into place to reimburse taxpayers for the amount of money and time spent, when these
requests are not met in the legal time allowed?
Sirs, it appears that the past and present board believes that the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW is. . . a. . . joke! Further, the past and present board believes that it can withhold, not declare, falsify and even remove information from town files, in order to keep the taxpayer from getting information the board does not want the public to have. This is further evidenced by this boards new policy of charging $15.00 an hour plus .50 cents a copy to get RTK information. This policy CLEARLY goes against the intent of the Right to Know Law.
The most important question I ask is the following:
1. Will you commit tonight, to stop breaking the RIGHT TO KNOW LAW or are you going to force the taxpayers of this town, to take you to superior court to get you to obey the laws of this state?
Sirs, I present you, individually with my fourth request for the information you are withholding in violation of the Right to Know Law.
Comments:
1. Selectmen refuse to commit to G.D. Brownfield for a date for their reply.
2. Selectmen refuse to allow Brownfield to appear again before the board to discuss his two other issues:
1. Freedom of Speech – Removal of all atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com signs from the town prior to an election.
3. The new Petition to revalue the Town of Atkinson, signed by over 150 property owners.
TAXPAYERS: IT’S OVERDUE TO EJECT THESE MEN FROM OFFICE AND TAKE OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT BACK.
Selectmen... The Truth will set you free!
Paul, simply explain to MR. Brownfield, and the public that a total town- wide re-evaluation will cost the town approximately $200,000. Explain, publicly, that that large an amount can not be covered by either the chief's slush fund, nor the fluff in the budget, and therefore the application will have to go to the Court, as an emergency expenditure.
As far as the right to know information, please remember that the town is supposed to provide this information within 5 days if at all possible. Wouldn't it be simpler if the town just did what it is supposed to without trying to hide things that should be in the public domain?
As far as the right to know information, please remember that the town is supposed to provide this information within 5 days if at all possible. Wouldn't it be simpler if the town just did what it is supposed to without trying to hide things that should be in the public domain?
Saturday, May 3
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
MAcciard said...
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — The Atkinson Police Department lost two of its own this week.
Sgt. Diane Kinney, who had served the town for 35 years, died yesterday morning after a four-year battle with cancer, Chief Philip Consentino said. He said Kinney was in her late 60s.
Department members learned of her death when they returned from the funeral for Rose Ann Masello, a secretarial volunteer, who died of cancer Sunday.
Members of the Police Department have spent the past five months striking a balance between working and supporting Cpl. John Lapham, who is battling leukemia.
Lapham is in a burn unit in a Boston hospital "in his worst condition" since being diagnosed in December, Consentino said.
Those are tough numbers for a 21-member department.
Consentino said Kinney and Masello will be memorialized at the police station. But for now, he and many others are in mourning.
Kinney and Consentino shared quite a history. They worked together before police used portable radios, he said. They would call each other on the telephone when a report came in and go to the scene together. Their friendship went beyond work — they vacationed together and took care of each other, Consentino said.
Although she kept up to date with her officer certification, Kinney worked most recently as a dispatcher. She went through radiation and chemotherapy a number of times in the last four years, but Consentino said she always made her way back to the station.
"She never let anyone know it was that bad," he said.
The same goes for Masello, who always had a smile on her face and had everyone "in stitches," Consentino said. Although Masello was a volunteer, Consentino said she was truly a member of the department and will not be easily replaced.
"She was too young and too energetic," he said.
Masello, 62, began volunteering at the station when she moved to Atkinson in 2005, Lt. William Baldwin said.
"She was wonderful," Baldwin said. "I knew her outside, too, because her son is a good friend. So, it's particularly hard."
While they mourn the loss of Masello and Kinney, department members continue to pray for Lapham, an eight-year veteran of the force.
Shortly after receiving a bone marrow transplant last month, the 39-year-old Lapham developed a rash. The rash quickly turned into second-degree burns all over his body, his father said.
"They don't know what caused it," Stan Lapham said. "He's developed a reaction or a drug interaction or a drug stem cell interaction."
Doctors put John Lapham in an induced coma last week because his pain was so extreme, but took him out of it on Saturday night, Stan Lapham said. He has to be in strict isolation until his skin heals, his father said. He can't have visitors because chemotherapy and radiation compromised his immune system.
Despite the burns, Stan Lapham said, the bone marrow transplant team says the transplant is still working. They expect John Lapham to be in the hospital for months before he can return home to Chester.
Stan Lapham said earlier this week that he heard about Masello and Kinney.
"We pray for them all," he said. "When you get into something, you realize how great this community is. The support we're getting is what keeps my wife and I going."
I knew Sgt. Kinney when I was a kid, and she was a remarkable woman, who deserves our attention.
Publius, Please accept this as an article submission.
Atkinson police mourn two colleagues this week
By Meghan Carey
Staff writer
ATKINSON — The Atkinson Police Department lost two of its own this week.
Sgt. Diane Kinney, who had served the town for 35 years, died yesterday morning after a four-year battle with cancer, Chief Philip Consentino said. He said Kinney was in her late 60s.
Department members learned of her death when they returned from the funeral for Rose Ann Masello, a secretarial volunteer, who died of cancer Sunday.
Members of the Police Department have spent the past five months striking a balance between working and supporting Cpl. John Lapham, who is battling leukemia.
Lapham is in a burn unit in a Boston hospital "in his worst condition" since being diagnosed in December, Consentino said.
Those are tough numbers for a 21-member department.
Consentino said Kinney and Masello will be memorialized at the police station. But for now, he and many others are in mourning.
Kinney and Consentino shared quite a history. They worked together before police used portable radios, he said. They would call each other on the telephone when a report came in and go to the scene together. Their friendship went beyond work — they vacationed together and took care of each other, Consentino said.
Although she kept up to date with her officer certification, Kinney worked most recently as a dispatcher. She went through radiation and chemotherapy a number of times in the last four years, but Consentino said she always made her way back to the station.
"She never let anyone know it was that bad," he said.
The same goes for Masello, who always had a smile on her face and had everyone "in stitches," Consentino said. Although Masello was a volunteer, Consentino said she was truly a member of the department and will not be easily replaced.
"She was too young and too energetic," he said.
Masello, 62, began volunteering at the station when she moved to Atkinson in 2005, Lt. William Baldwin said.
"She was wonderful," Baldwin said. "I knew her outside, too, because her son is a good friend. So, it's particularly hard."
While they mourn the loss of Masello and Kinney, department members continue to pray for Lapham, an eight-year veteran of the force.
Shortly after receiving a bone marrow transplant last month, the 39-year-old Lapham developed a rash. The rash quickly turned into second-degree burns all over his body, his father said.
"They don't know what caused it," Stan Lapham said. "He's developed a reaction or a drug interaction or a drug stem cell interaction."
Doctors put John Lapham in an induced coma last week because his pain was so extreme, but took him out of it on Saturday night, Stan Lapham said. He has to be in strict isolation until his skin heals, his father said. He can't have visitors because chemotherapy and radiation compromised his immune system.
Despite the burns, Stan Lapham said, the bone marrow transplant team says the transplant is still working. They expect John Lapham to be in the hospital for months before he can return home to Chester.
Stan Lapham said earlier this week that he heard about Masello and Kinney.
"We pray for them all," he said. "When you get into something, you realize how great this community is. The support we're getting is what keeps my wife and I going."
I knew Sgt. Kinney when I was a kid, and she was a remarkable woman, who deserves our attention.
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
