Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

This demonstrates the basic dishonesty of our chief, and the Lt.

This article is to layout for those commenting on the warrant articles, the basic dishonesty of the chief. And the evident Greed of our Lt. in their dealings with the town that pays them, that they profess to love and serve selflessly.


A selectmen's workshop last year 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!

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

great job on this article! I totally forgot the details of this issue. So Bill tried to scam the town, and the chief was right there with him. You wonder why some people question Bill's ethics.

Anonymous said...

Well once again there are 2 sides to every story.And with this blogs creditability. I am sure there is a lot more to this then what is being said on here. I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt. sorry but its like the boy who cried wolf.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I see more taxpayer lawsuits on the horizon. Civil rights violations, fraud, collusion, intimidation, on the part of CHIEF OF POLICE, selectmen, town moderator, loss of benefits and retirement, reimbursement for funds stolen from taxpayers, and federal indictments. When will this all end and what cost to Atkinson Taxpayers? I thought the ice storm had crippled us, but I think that was just the tip of the iceberg. (No pun intended)

In this bad economy Atkinson Taxpayers do not need this. If I were Consentino....or wife Jody.....I wouldn't dare show my face at Town Meeting. Same for the rest of the Atkinson Mafia. They should plan on using a bigger room for this meeting, but they won't.

Taxpayers of Atkinson........You can't AFFORD not to attend Town Meeting, or be aware of what has been going on in town for years.

You can't afford not to know who caused this.

Consentino's needs to go where Childs has been.

Just my opinion

Anonymous said...

TO: Anonymous said...

Well once again there are 2 sides to every story.And with this blogs creditability. I am sure there is a lot more to this then what is being said on here. I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt. sorry but its like the boy who cried wolf.

January 20, 2009 7:23 PM

Sounds like an Atkinson Mafia comment to me. In particular a Jack Sapia comment. Always defending the Mafia.

If this is you JACK.........don't you have enough trouble? Haven't you learned?

Anonymous said...

Actually its Not Jack. Its just me an Atkinson resident, who's been along this blog ride for a while now and knows how the ride works. all the twists and turns. Boy I feel like I'm going to be sick!

Anonymous said...

"I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt. sorry but its like the boy who cried wolf."

Yes, it tough when all those darn, pesky facts get in the way, especially when they are documented.

So, if there is another side to the story, where is the documentation? Are BOS minutes in error? Did not the Chief admit he violated written town policy, for 6 years, on television? Or, did we imagine that?

Anonymous said...

TO Anonymous said...
Actually its Not Jack. Its just me an Atkinson resident, who's been along this blog ride for a while now and knows how the ride works. all the twists and turns. Boy I feel like I'm going to be sick!

January 20, 2009 7:40 PM

Reply: Grain of Salt is not worth anything. Since that's what you think........wish you the best in getting better. In light of the factual information presented and your denial,.........your thoughts are worth the same as the "grain of salt" you stated. Hope you get better as you leave town JACK.

Fishgutz said...

I'd comment further but it has all been said so many times and well documented.
The Chief has to go. And Lt needs to reimburse the taxpayers with interest for all the wrongly claim wages.

Anonymous said...

LOL, to anon @ 7:23,

Read the minutes of the two meeting on the town's website, and draw your own conclusions. The selectmen's minutes do not paint a very flattering picture.

Anonymous said...

TO: Anonymous said...
Well once again there are 2 sides to every story.And with this blogs creditability. I am sure there is a lot more to this then what is being said on here. I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt. sorry but its like the boy who cried wolf.

January 20, 2009 7:23 PM

IN REPLY: Me thinks YOU are the wolf in SHEEPS CLOTHING and not worth YOUR little grain of salt.

If your wife runs out of salt, do not bother going to Market Basket. I'll give you back the same grain you just posted. Call me. I'm your friend. sigh

Anonymous said...

I do have a question for posters on this blog. A while back I remember reading that there was to little crime in Atkinson and we had to many officers with to little crime. But the other day I saw someone post that we do have crime the chief just covers it up. Hmmmm which is it to little or to much.I'm confused.It is that when its in your favor we have to little and when not we have to much. wow..I am trying my hardest to follow along. Maybe I am just one of those stupid residents.

Anonymous said...

To, Too and Two...

Too many mistakes

To school, where you should go.

Two cents, as in mine.

You wrote the last line, I just shook my head in agreement.

As for crime, I wish I knew. It never seems to make the crime blotter in the Tribune.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, most of the crime appears to be being committed by our police chief

Anonymous said...

These are our town's electioneering RSA's:

659:44 Electioneering at the Polling Place. – No election officer shall electioneer while in the performance of his official duties. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' shall mean to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. – No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

From RSA 273-A:1, IX. ""Public employee'' means any person employed by a public employer except:

(a) Persons elected by popular vote;

(b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body of the public employer;

(c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public employer; or

(d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed seasonally, irregularly or on call. For the purposes of this chapter, however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of funding of the position in which he is employed.

31:41-c Electioneering. – Towns shall have the power to make bylaws regulating the distribution of campaign materials or electioneering or any activity which affects the safety, welfare and rights of voters at any election held for any purpose in such town. Such power shall not extend to the display of printed or written matter attached to any legally parked motor vehicle, nor shall such power extend to activities conducted wholly on private property so as not to interfere with people approaching or entering a polling place. Failure to conform to bylaws adopted under this section shall constitute a violation. A copy of the bylaws adopted under this section shall be provided to the town clerk immediately following adoption so that they may be made available to candidates filing for office, and shall be posted at each polling place at least 72 hours in advance of any town election.


A couple of questions to my fellow readers here:

1. Is the Chief an election officer?

2. Is the Chief appointed by the BOS and is the BOS considered the legislative body of our town?

I am just trying to understand how/if "electioneering" by the Chief, and as defined by our town RSAs, actually took place. From what I read here, I don't see it.

I look forward to feedback.

Anonymous said...

First of all the RSA's are STATE law;

A couple of questions to my fellow readers here:

1. Is the Chief an election officer?

2. Is the Chief appointed by the BOS and is the BOS considered the legislative body of our town?

I am just trying to understand how/if "electioneering" by the Chief, and as defined by our town RSAs, actually took place. From what I read here, I don't see it.

I look forward to feedback.

1.) No he is not an election officer since he left the BOS.

2.) Chief was appointed by the BOS, but they have failed to re-appoint. The BOS is the "governing body" the Voters are the "legislative body".

3.) Re-read the following section;

659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. – No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, ""electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Anonymous said...

But the Chief has been indimidating people who signed these petitions, which is a felony.


NH State Law pertaining to this issue, notice sections I. and II.;

659:40 Bribing; Intimidation; Suppression. –
I. No person shall directly or indirectly bribe any person not to register to vote or any voter not to vote or to vote for or against any question submitted to voters or to vote for or against any ticket or candidate for office at any election.
II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.
III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include:
(a) Challenging another person's right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(b) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(c) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting at the proper place or time by providing information that he or she knows to be false or misleading about the date, time, place, or manner of the election.
IV. Whoever violates the provisions of this section or whoever conspires to violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.
V. This section is not intended to preclude prosecution or sentencing under any section of RSA 640.

Anonymous said...

So the question is;

Do we want a police chief, who admits breaking the law, violating town policy, and who has been found in court to have violated town ordinance, and found in contempt of court?

Do we want the next chief, to be another officer with little experience, little education, who has already sued the town once for the Lt. job, and tried to scam the town for money?

And lets be honest, 10 years of experience in Atkinson, where you NEVEr have to draw your weapon, is not the same as experience in Lawrence, or Boston.

Anonymous said...

To Mr/Mrs "2 sides to every story":

Instead of defending the Chief and LT. with some vague charge against the blog, why don't you refute the argument presented in detail in the original post?

Oh, nevermind, I forgot; you can't refute the facts because they're documented in official town meeting minutes. I guess that leaves you without a leg to stand on. So what happens?

You make vague comments against the blog.

You know, if you could actually come up with some kind of FACTUAL argument to defend the chief and LT. it would do more for your argument.

In fact, why don't we see if you can post something arguing AGAINST the facts presented in the original blog post. Then we'll see if you're right or not.

We're waiting...

Anonymous said...

I agree. If there are two sides of accounts presented, I would like very much to hear the other side. Not an unreasonable request.

Atkinson-Factor said...

One thing, Chief of Police calls petitioners and asks them why they would sign? In my book that is wrong. The debate is, is this a felony or a mistdemeanor? Anyhow, he behaived like a dictator in my opinion. You wonder why people in this town are afraid of speaking up. And this is not "spinning the truth", It is a fact.

Anonymous said...

You people are amazing. Ten years in Atkinson is little experience, when you don't have to pull your gun? How do you know if Baldwin has ever pulled his gun. Does he call you at the end of the day to tell you what he had to do or didn't have to do during the shift? Get a fucking life already.

Anonymous said...

Nice choice of words.

Anonymous said...

"Get a fucking life already."

Well, we are doing that. We are expressing our freedom of speech and our displeasure with the status quo.

Now, I can take a guess of two people who'd rather we didn't do that. They will call us names, say we don't have all the facts, yada, yada.

Thing is, there are already a lot of facts out there. They are meeting minutes, court records, newspaper accounts. There is some really good stuff on video. Some I've even seen with my own eyes. This is not fiction. This not something someone made up. It is not libel when there are facts and witnesses involved.

So, since for what seems like a zillion years, our various BOS's have not taken action. Now the citizens are. There is even a word for it, Democracy. And I, for one, am absolutely thrilled. Now, I know not everyone shares my enthusiasm, but January 21, 2009 6:18 PM and the rest brought this upon themselves. This is not a vendetta. Looking at the very long list misdeeds, I call this justice.

So now I will go on with my fucking life.

Anonymous said...

To anon @ 6:18;

Because there have only been three firearms incidents in Atkinson in the last 18 years!

One the officer fired his weapon by accident, hit nothing.

So that leaves two weapons drawn in the commission of their duties in 18 years!

You do the math! And do it before you call people a fucking idiot, fucking idiot!

Anonymous said...

I notice all these comments about everything but this article.

Nobody thinks this behavior is dishonest?

Nobody wants an explanation?

Or is this gouging of the taxpayer because it came from Atkinson's messiah?

MAcciard said...

Please accept this as an article submission.

To my fellow Atkinsonians,

A truly sad day has befallen the town. On Sunday evening Marsha Bassi, wife of Ben Bassi, Mother of Kendra, Jillian, Rebecca, and Vitctoria Bassi, passed away after a heated battle with cancer.

To know Marsha was to love her. She headed the ski club for 10 years, she served honorably on the Budget committee for 4 years. She was a sweet heart of a woman, whose soft voice and kind words belied the tenacity of a pitbull.

While serving on budget committee, she never shied away from asking the tough questions of the most abrasive personalities in town, and she did it with class and tact.

Marsha, you will be sorely missed. To Ben, Kendra, Jillian, Rebecca, and Victoria, should there be anything we can do for you please call and let me know.

Thank you for your friendship, and for your service to the town I lived lived in and loved for 41 years.

For those that wish to pay their respects, viewing hours are from 4pm- 8pm, Thursday, at the Cautadella Funeral Home on Pleasant Valley st. in Methuen, just down from the Loop.

Please wear something pink!

Anonymous said...

So I spent some time today talking with some Atkinson residents..Hmmm I wasn't surprised by what I heard 75 percent of people don't even read this blog.Have never even had 1 single issue with the chief. Think things are fine and would like to keep it that way. I also asked about the Lt. and funny I didn't hear a bad word. I actually heard some nice story's from people, on how the Lt. has been helpful and they feel he goes over and above. They have respect for our Police Officers it was actually refreshing to hear. Most said this is exactly what they love about living in a small town.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight. It is a bad thing the Atkinson Police are professional enough in their actions to not have to have shootouts in the street every day. You would prefer the wild west in order to demonstrate an officer's "experience." That is some dumb ass backwards thinking.

Curt Springer said...

To anon@January 21, 2009 7:36 AM:

In order to come to an opinion on whether or not somebody is electioneering, you have to make your own decision based on the law and the facts. I'm not from Atkinson, as most of you know. I try not to comment on the facts and personalities. I only know what I read online here and in the ET. But I do feel comfortable commenting on the law, which is the same in your town and mine.

One point I have made in Danville, and have not seen here, is that you do not check your civil rights at the door when you get involved in town government, whether you are appointed or elected, whether or not you receive compensation, and, if you do, whether you receive a token flat amount or an hourly wage.

Town officials have as much right as you to express their opinion on town affairs, including on votes that might affect them, and including asking you how you will vote or telling you why you should vote as they would like.

It's only "electioneering" if they are using town resources to deliver their message. This could involve doing it on the clock, using town equipment, or directing subordinate employees to deliver the message.

Regarding intimidation, which others have mentioned, the mere fact that somebody is a police officer and asks a voter to vote one way or the other is not necessarily intimidation.

To get into one specific issue of fact, it is posted that your chief "admits breaking the law." I believe this is based on the ET article which said "The chief said when he saw the petition last week, he called three people who signed it to ask them why they had and if they knew it would be the end of his job." If that is so, the chief did not admit to breaking the law, rather that is the poster's interpretation of the chief's acknowledged action.

I don't mean to defend or endorse any actions. Actions can be unwise without being illegal.

Atkinson-Factor said...

Curt,
The Chief called and asked them why they signed? If i was the person recieving the phone call, i would take that as intimidation. Also, he even gets one of them to sign a paper to remove thier signature. How else, but could you not see this as breaking policy on electioneering? Classinc "bully" syndrome, in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 10:10;

Yes and everyone who has felt the chief's wrath, felt the same way, until they managed to piss him off, and felt the sting of it.

Until that time most of us, felt he was a kindly old man doing his job, and things like that just don't happen in Atkinson.

But we have found out they do, and now there is evidence to prove it.

We have seen him blow up on camera.

We have read the Court Orders.

The fact that he was found in contempt of court, that means he violated court orders.

His admission of voter intimidation.

The Lawsuits, legal fees, and settlements, going all way back to 1981!

As for the Lt., he is a nice guy, always professional in appearance, and ready to help.

But the attempt to scam the town for more money is dishonest and troubling, and it is FACT, not opinion.

Anonymous said...

well If i signed a petition to eliminate someones job. Which I did not sign this petition. I would be ready to explain why I signed it to anyone. I don't find it intimidating for someone to ask me what are the reasons behind me signing it. Now if someone called me up screaming at me for signing it and then threatened me for signing, then I would find that intimidating. This is not the case here. I had an issue once with the town about a company van parked in my driveway. I did speak to my neighbors asking them if they had problem with this, not because I was trying to intimidate them but because we wanted to understand the problem. All neighbors were appalled that someone would actually have an issue with this considering this was our lively hood. I do not find this intimidating in any way. Take responsibility for your actions.I have not found the chief to be a bully. I respect him for his position and I have never been disrespected from him.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Springer,

The chief called and asked how they could sign it, and dont they know it could cost him his job.

They then came to the town hall with the chief and his wife, and with their help drafted a letter to the selectmen asking to withdraw their names from the ballot. claiming that they would never do anything to harm the chiefs job, he has done so much for them.

NO public employee, may use their position to bully, harrass, or intimidate a voter or petitioner in ANY WAY.

In Atkinson we have a code of ethics ordinance. The fact that this issue is about his job violates that as well.

It also violates Federal election law, as previously posted.

And this is not the first time. This is his S.O.P.

7 years ago when this same issue was on the ballot, he called everyone who signed, and parked his cruiser with lights going, in front of Steve Lewis' office on Main st. for over an hour while he was inside screaming at him, IN HIS OWN OFFICE!

I was at a selectmen's meeting in 2003, when chair Barbara Stewart said to chief, quietly, he hand over the mic. "I expected you to cut me some slack" this was about the ongoing debate in that meeting, about conflicts of interest. Chief replied, in a very nasty tone of voice, "I cut you slack every time i see you doing 90 down main st."

This is who he is. A bully!

Anonymous said...

7:51;

when you "talk" to people, you dont scream, and you dont have a badge and a gun, and the authority to control their access to rides and support.

Anonymous said...

Your one of the lucky ones then. But i am sure you never have disagreed with him publicly, have you? Anyone who does, gets it back at them 10 fold.

Atkinson-Factor said...

I guess sending out letters on Atkinson Police dept letterhead telling who the chief supports isn't electioneering either. These letters aren't mass mailings either, they are labeled to the person, and just select people get these letters, His personal list of residents. That in itself says something as well.

Anonymous said...

Yes actually I have disagreed with the chief. I have presented my case, explained my side and talked to him with respect just like I would with anyone else I have disagreed with.Believe it or not I got respect back. So its all in the way you present yourself. Sorry it wasn't on camera.

Curt Springer said...

Thanks for all the replies.

I purposely tried not to get into specific details of your town and your chief.

I tried to analogize to my town, where our chief, Wade Parsons, is elected. He is popular, although he does have detractors. I thought about what if somebody were running against him, and I had a sign for the other guy in front of my house. Or another hypothetical situation, closer to the mark, would have been what if I signed a petition to switch to an appointed chief. He didn't get along with the BOS of the day about 5 years ago, so such a petition at that time would clearly have been an attempt to get rid of him.

Of course there are shades of gray. If I were standing in my driveway and Wade were driving by in his police car and just happened to see me and roll down the window, and we chatted for 1 minute, that would be so incidental I would think that it wouldn't be "electioneering" even though done in a town car on town time. It would be different if he had a list and took a morning specifically driving from house to house in his police car knocking on peoples' doors.

And of course there could be reasonable perceptions of intimidation if he brought up town votes in the process of pulling me over for speeding or whatever.

I will also tell you that I did speak with your chief once, about 18 months ago, at the time I posted stuff in SpeakoutDanville about the wheelchair van that was to be donated to a family in Danville. He left a message on my machine and I returned his call. He said he had been told that I would not return his call. He made it clear that he disagreed with what I had posted, but his tone was cordial and there not the least hint of intimidation, nothing like "you'd better watch your speed when you drive in my town," really nothing personal at all.

Anonymous said...

I welcome Curt's advice and gee Curt maybe you should move to Atkinson we could use more levelheaded citizens.

MAcciard said...

I can understand your position, given that you have never had reason to question something the chief did, publicly, which is what seems to get us into trouble, but;

I have never made a personally disparaging remark about the chief.

I have always spoken to him with respect, and treated him cordially in budget meetings.

I, DID, however ask him to recuse himself from voting on police matters as a selectman.

Now, have I done anything to warrant him calling my company's customers and suppliers, and telling them that I was "under investigation" by the Atkinson Police Dept.?

This happened on or about 1/17/06. Nothing had happened within months of that to prompt it. It was out of the blue.

Do you condone this type of behavior?

Anonymous said...

Look on the Atkinson-Factor.blogspot.com
Here we go again!

Anonymous said...

"Hmmm I wasn't surprised by what I heard 75 percent of people don't even read this blog.Have never even had 1 single issue with the chief."

What did you do, talk to 4 people at Georges?

Absolutely meaningless.

AtkinsonReporter2 said...

I am certain that most people in town dont read this blog.

But with 50,000 hits and 4,200 unique visitors in the last 5 months, somebody is reading it.

Anonymous said...

What constitutes a "unique visitor"? IP Address of the Computer used to access? Or the MAC id of the device?

Anonymous said...

unique is when i log onto the other 20 computers i have access too.

AtkinsonReporter2 said...

That is unique visitors, for the last 5 months. meaning that computer visited this site, once in that time.

Atkinson-Factor said...

You can't dispute the facts that alot of people have looked at this blog. Say what you will, but the numbers don't lie.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who knows anything about internet marketing will tell you that tracking website hits is totally useless. Every time the AR2 page loads it generates about 5-6 hits due to the images it has on the page. Unique visitors is more accurate way to track traffic. However, there are some ardent followers to this blog that appear to check in several times a day. So one would have to know how blogger.com logs and retains information to truly know if this number is accurate. My guess is 4,200 is an over estimate.

Anonymous said...

If a user checks in often, but does so from the same computer, or more correctly, IP address, he is recorded as a unique visitor, and will continue same as long as the IP address does not change. It is also true some people may log in from different computers/IP addresses. Each computer would be recorded as a unique visitor.

So, it is most likely there have not been 4,200 "individuals" viewing the blog.

The number is further muddied by the fact most households have only one IP address, but multiple computers. This is what home routers do; let a number of people share the same IP address. In this case, you could have each member of a family visiting the blog, but it would be recorded as one unique visitor.

So you have people logging in from different IP addresses, but also numerous people viewing from the same IP address.

So, it is impossible to know the true number of visitors. But, even if every individual logged in from two computers/IP addresses, 2,100 unique visitors is still a respectable number for a town the size of Atkinson.

Now, there have been some who claim very few people monitor the blog. The stats suggest otherwise. It is not 4,200, but is sure a heck of lot more than a 100. If I were Phil or Bill, I'd be worried.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Get a fucking life already."

I would hope the management of this site would edit articles that use this type of language. How a person wishes to speak in their own home around their wife and children is their business, but I for one find it offensive and don't think it belongs on this site. Free speach is one thing filth is another,and if it is allowed it is just dragging this site down and will keep good people away. It is possible to have heated discussions without that type of filth.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so how do you want it?

should the blog delete comments like that, and then have to defend that they moderate?

Or should people, who want to bitch about lack of free speech, do the right thing, and maintain some manners?

BTW, If it is free speech you want you should be more pissed than the general public, about the chief's attempts to shut critical speech down.

Anonymous said...

It was a poor use of words, and it was used to defend a person who would be affected if a particular warrant passes. Friends like that the Lt. does not need.

Normally I think that people who feel it necessary to use such language to get their point across are insufficiently educated to use more convincing and articulate language. I also feel that using such a word to provide emphasis often does more harm than good to the persons argument. To paraphrase an old saying, "You may be stupid, but opening your mouth can prove it."

However, in regards to this particular word, it's use has become so prevalent and widespread that it is difficult sometimes to even realize it is profanity. Just watch a stand-up comic on a pay channel like HBO.

I am not advocating its use here, and I hope it does not get worse. Emotions run high this time of year. The moderator has pretty much kept a hands off approach, best I can tell. However, I do hope he will draw a line if need be.

We can disagree on a matter, but we can also keep it civil.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Ok, so how do you want it?

should the blog delete comments like that, and then have to defend that they moderate?


No, but I would like the managers of this blog STATE UP FRONT, that any statements issued that include that filth, will be excluded. YOU CAN STILL get your point across with out using that language. Say what you want just keep it clean so people don't cringe every time that word is shown. If you must then use symbols Li$e T@#s

Anonymous said...

This blog %$#%^$#$#
Just practicing !