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.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Hey Frank, Learn the Law before you lecture us!

From the NH Insider;

Hey Frank, Where You Going With That Brown On Your Nose?

Well I went to the Atkinson Deliberative session on Saturday to behold the spectacle of democracy at its worst – I was not disappointed.

Here is how it works:

The police chief has a following built with taxpayer dollars in the form of a nifty little program called “Atkinson Elderly Affairs.” The chief uses town resources to “help” people and in return is allowed certain privileges such as bullying anyone he dislikes.

The chief has a long record of suits filed against him and the town of Atkinson regularly pays for damages and defends thuggish behavior. It is an undisputable matter of public record not worth debating with his loyal clan of sycophants.

But try as he might, the chief can not stop the last few good people who are standing up to him, there are only a handful that show up in person at meetings so he seems to have it in for anyone who would sign a citizens petitioned warrant article for this small band of warrior/taxpayers. This would pull the rug out from under their ability to put something on a ballot for the larger vote on Election day in March.

As luck would have it, chief thuggo’s second attempt at intimidating petition signers in the last eight years has lead to a lawsuit based on the petitioners civil rights. The Town will lose this suit in court and with public opinion this time because it will get statewide publicity. The local press will not be able to save the chief this time and I think some of Atkinson’s power elite can smell it in the air.

This Saturday it looked like there was a bit of a muzzle on the chief and it was the job of two former selectmen to show the obstinate minority who was boss one last time.

No sooner had local taxpayer Gary Brownfield (trouble maker) quietly taken a handful of pictures with his professional camera than the Atkinson Moderator Frank Polito told him to stop – exercising his right to privacy as a private individual. Polito was quickly reminded by taxpayer Leon Artus that as moderator he was not a private citizen and he could simply hand the gavel over to anyone else and leave if he did not want his picture taken in a public meeting.

This lead to a unique rendition of RSA 91-A, where under Moderator Frank Polito’s learned interpretation the Right to Know law allowed FILMING and TAPE RECORDING of public meetings but no right to take pictures with a camera.

Polito even went to his police department sycophant power base for support and called for a vote of his decision to stop Mr. Brownfield. This is called: putting a cherry on the butterscotch sundae, all in the name of ego.

Later, Polito had the members vote to allow the Lawrence Eagle Tribune photographer to take pictures – jimmies on the cherry. And after that, one of the cookie ladies in the back of the room cranked out a camera just like Brownfield’s and took some pictures without a vote or comment by anyone – sprinkles on the jimmies.

But the crowning/clowning glory of the Atkinson Deliberative session was his “in-your-faceness,” Frank I-Forget-His-Name, who would leap to the microphone at the slightest opportunity to comment on his own comments, after amending his comments. Sad, sad, sad. Frank even sat as far from the microphone he so dearly covets so he could enjoy the walk to it every three minutes – ALL DAY LONG!

Atkinson should have an ordinance against abuse of the municipal limelight to slow the two Franks down a bit but they are too busy trying to crush every single vestige of opposition to kissing the thug of a police chief’s posterior. Let’s hope they don’t crack their heads if the chief snaps his fingers.

One other personal observation: I spotted the reporter for the Tribune, who was sitting in front of me in the Visitor section, clapping at the appropriate brown-noser opportunities the “moderator” allowed.
Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 04:20PM by Registered CommenterEd Naile |

For the Record, the person Mr. Naile refers to as the second "Frank", was none other than our own former Selectman, current code of ethics member Jack Sapia!


Anonymous said...

Jack, you know how to sad, to bad, bye bye?

I hope you get jail time. Couldn't happen to better people.

Bye, bye!

Anonymous said...

Oh, Oh, how about this. Jack, Frank.........if you don't like things not going your way......may I suggest YOU MOVE OUT OF TOWN, STATE, COUNTRY?

May I suggest that you get a GOVERNMENT POSITION where Mr. McAllister went? (Another DOLE POSITION AT TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE) Good luck. Our men are dying over there, sincerely hope that won't happen to you.

Good riddens.

Diogenes said...

I posted this in a later topic, but it seems better suited here.

I'll try and make this simple.

The discussions have been vivid and enlightening. However, I have read the documentation on taxpayers site regarding the Chief, Frank Polito, and Jack Sapia. I must admit, it looks kosher.

This is not for those who oppose the above people. I've read it all. And, for this discussion lets leave out what has happened in the past two weeks. Things are still too charged to get unbiased opinions. What I would like is to hear is what their supporters say.

So, the question is, is the documentation posted on the tax payers site accurate in your opinion? If not, what is your interpretation?

If the documentation is in error, how do you suggest it be corrected? If the documentation is correct, why should the people of Atkinson support them?

I will admit, I tend to believe what I've read. But, since the Chief clearly has so much support in this town, I'd like to know why? If the documentation is in error, I can then understand your support. If it is accurate, why should they continue to be supported?

I'm not here to point fingers, make wild accusations, berate people for their opinions. The anti-Chief, Frank and Jack faction have been very clear on how they feel. Honestly, I've come to a crossroads. Despite what I've read, I don't know who or what to really believe. I just want the other perspective. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Why all the debate? Selectmen do not do their job and refer all dissention to the courts. Following their direction. A couple taxpayers are following their direction and the legal process. No debate is necessary. A decision will be made at taxpayer expense. If the taxpayers doesn't care how their taxpayer dollars are spent, same with selectmen, why should I? There can be only one winner! Let the courts decide.

Hopefully the plaintiffs will not agree to a "Non disclosure" clause, and the winner will be able to inform the non caring public of the results.

If taxpayers don’t care…………why should I?

Anonymous said...

Both behaved like children. Frank started it, Gary made a ass of himself afterward.

Both lost whatever credibility they had after this.

Anonymous said...

Ya, but now the court will have to decide at taxpayer expense. This could have been resolved at town level, but YOU KNOW WHO wouldn't allows decency to prevail.

What a pathetic low life town.

Anonymous said...

To February 4, 2009 9:19 PM

Ya and to a low life board of selectmen who's strings are being pulled by a low life Police Chief.


Low life selectmen, police chief, town. Why would any decent person/family want to live here?

Anonymous said...

Chief has a lot of support for 3 reasons;

1.) 15 years driving ms. daisy around.

2.) 30 years fixing tickets, and hiding peoples problems, and they all owe him, once he does.

3.) Most people have not pissed him off, and therefore nevr seen the vindictive side of him.

Anonymous said...

The problem you are having is that residents that support neither you nor the Chief see the tactics used by the blog as an unwarranted attack on the town. An ordinary resident {98% I estmate} doesn't pay attention to everyday politics.
When something occurs it lands in the Trib and always makes this group look like a full deck of loonies. Your PR tactics have failed miserably. This group needs to rethink its direction in regards to the PR war. Its really pretty basic why the bloggers lose everytime. It's just like the war on terror, you can't win with force alone, you must win the hearts of the residents over. Until you make this correction you will continue to lose and in the process continue to make our town look like a bunch of idiots.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:28,

Well said! And it is not just the ET that is wise to them. The Union Leader's recent article calls to question whether PC is a bully...or a target. They do not represent themselves well and they are not representative of the town as a whole.

Anonymous said...

So other than allowing ourselves to be targeted by a juvenile, petty, vindictive bully with a badge, what is your suggestion?

Anonymous said...

I don't have the answer but I do feel that I have isolated one of the main issues that needs to be figured out in order for this group to succeed. As long as they win the PR campaign, you will lose
regardless of court decisions/wrist slapping that has occurred for years and years.

Anonymous said...

If Frank is not commissioned by the town to be at the podium, the law suit should be directed at him and his personal estate. The town should not be responsible for his personal actions.

Once that suit has been addressed, a law suit should be against the town for letting a non approved individual take command of the podium. More over, all parties should familiarize themselves by reading Roberts Rules and how to moderate rather than allow lawlessness take place.

Anonymous said...

Ed must have experience in this regard. Any direction you could point us in would be helpful.

Anonymous said...

How is Frank not commissioned by the town?

Anonymous said...

February 5, 2009 9:48 AM
February 5, 2009 10:22 AM
February 5, 2009 10:29 AM

I with you of you. My take.

This forum has lost credibility, and though the stories may be true, the presentation has come off badly and sometimes silly.

Regarding the ET and UL articles. I was equally disappointed. They did no digging at all. What would do the trick is something like the "Spotlight" series of articles the Globe does to expose something wrong, and tell it all. But, that requires work so, forget it. The Globe is not coming here and I don't see ET or UL doing it.

An outlet like the blog is needed, but think the time for this one is over. I believe the blog owner, and I think I now who that is, is doing a poor job of making his case. It is coming off as juvenile.

I feel that we need a new one that is moderated (moderated not censored), that the discussions be kept civil, and announced to all the citizens of Atkinson. I bet most people don't understand the blog signs and they are also becoming silly.

Until the blog is cleaned up, presented in an adult manner, and made aware to all, it has no hope of influencing town politics. JMHO

Anonymous said...

If Frank is not commissioned by the town to be at the podium, the law suit should be directed at him and his personal estate. The town should not be responsible for his personal actions.

Once that suit has been addressed, a law suit should be against the town for letting a non approved individual take command of the podium. More over, all parties should familiarize themselves by reading Roberts Rules and how to moderate rather than allow lawlessness take place.

More lawsuits? So much for your PR. Can't you see residents have wised up to you here. The real bullies are the small group in town who want to sue everyone. And suing the town isn't good enough? You have to target the individuals and their personal estate? What a bunch of low lifes!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:30,

Can you explain your comment? Are you saying Frank is not commissioned from the town because Leon Artus asked him to step down as moderator of Saturday's meeting? I don't quite understand this statement.

Anonymous said...

I think the previous poster was trying to indicate if Frank is going to be man enough to throw his hat into it, he should take responsibility for it.

And as for another for the town, I say go for it. Line-em up. Eventually the fine people of Atkinson will realize that the we have problems with BOS, Chief and others and that they ARE the ones causing the bleeding. After all, if they continue to get away with it, why not the next guy and so on. It is a pure invitation to lawlessness.

Heck, maybe next time we can get someone else to grab the microphone, take charge of the meeting and offend everyone. Its a free for all.

Anonymous said...

More lawsuits? So much for your PR. Can't you see residents have wised up to you here. The real bullies are the small group in town who want to sue everyone. And suing the town isn't good enough? You have to target the individuals and their personal estate? What a bunch of low lifes! Ditto!!!!

Anonymous said...

To Anon 11:35,

"If Frank is not commissioned by the town"

I think the word is 'If' meaning they did not know if he was or not. Obviously there should be one moderator, one person in charge and not several. If one person was in charge and another stepped up to the plate to voice his opinion too (not commissioned as the moderator) , then I think we are understanding what the poster meant.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 11:45.

What will it take to correct for the lawlessness that is going on? Do those that seek justice allow it to happen? Granted another lawsuit is not good BUT to allow this sort of wrong behavior to happen is even worse.

So what will it take to correct the problem? Please answer that. Should we just turn our heads and allow this type of actions to happen?

In your own words, if you were tasked with correcting the problem, what would you do and how would you enforce it?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, most of the town is not paying attention and that is the main problem. If people showed up as they do at the voting booth, everyone would have had a vote and would have seen the antics. I believe that things would have been straightened out along time ago. Until they are, there will be lawsuits.

This blog is losing credibility because of the attacks from both sides. Any time either party engages in unprofessional, rude, disrespectful behavior, it ruins their reputation.

If you want to succeed, stop the name calling and pursue the goal like an adult. That's the best PR you can get.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Roberts Rules of order should be used in all situations!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Roberts Rules of order should be used in all situations!

Anonymous said...

You mean this?

Anonymous said...


RR. Overwhelming isn’t it.? And. Those who use these rules normally have a parliamentarian at hand.

Anonymous said...

Polito never attempted to have Brownfield removed from the meeting so he cannot argue that Brownfield was disruptive. He was no more disruptive than the Chief heckling. The logical move would be to remove him, not forbid his use of a camera.

It's clear to me that Polito was way out of line.

Anonymous said...

He did threaten to remove him and was being nice by allowing him to stay. It's all a matter of perspective.

Anonymous said...

ED Naile said:

I made a mistake in the small difference between Frank P. and Jack S.

Let me correct it.

Frank Politio is the little guy attempting to moderate the meeting - the guy with, in my opinion, the Napoleon Complex.

But Jack Sapia (Jack in the Box Sapia who pops out of the gymnasium ad nauseum demanding photos) is the guy who runs to the microphone every three seconds up on his tippy toes, flapping his arms at his side like a penguin bent on flight.

This Jack is the mirror image of Consentino except he has hair.

That is the difference. I made a slight mistake and apologize they do not interest me enough to remember their names.

What the two have in common is striking though. This IS interesting.

I would wager that neither Frank or Jack would stand up to a mob that outnumbered them like Gary, Leon, and Mark do. They derive their strength through a crowd of bullies.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:00,

Mr. Polito warned Mr. Brownfield twice that he was being disruptive and told him if he had to speak to him again, he would have him escorted out of the auditorium.

So, according to your message, Frank did the logical thing!

And in case you want to know when that happened, it was just after the lunch break.

Anonymous said...

Fellow citizens:

I am highlighting Mr. Naile's arrogant remarks for all to see:

Frank Politio is the little guy attempting to moderate the meeting - the guy with, in my opinion, the Napoleon Complex.

Jack Sapia (Jack in the Box Sapia who pops out of the gymnasium ad nauseum demanding photos) is the guy who runs to the microphone every three seconds up on his tippy toes, flapping his arms at his side like a penguin bent on flight.

This Jack is the mirror image of Consentino except he has hair.

I made a slight mistake and apologize they do not interest me enough to remember their names.

As if we need clarification on the trash he writes!

Mr. Naile, the only people who have stood up in any act of bravery was Ms. Goodrich and Mr. DiVito. The only thing your puppets did was go to the microphone and mumble. And Mr. Brownfield couldn't even do that without looking at the notes you had to write down for him to assist with your frivolous lawsuit scheme to fleece the taxpayers of Atkinson.

Thanks Gary, Leon, and Mark for introducing this unwelcome element into our town.

Anonymous said...

You are calling Ed Naile arrogant and then you turn around and call people puppets.

You cannot prove a point by doing what you are denouncing.

It's just plain dumb.

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Gary and Leon for introducing Mr. Naile to our community. It takes the "little guy" to stand up to the "ESTABLISHMENT" to keep our CIVIL RIGHTS in place.

It's guys like you Mr. Anonymous February 5, 2009 3:51 PM to remind us how you need to "shoot the messenger" to protect your position in the political establishment.

It's time for the "little guy" to expose the likes of you to the taxpayers of this town. Taxpayers that have the REAL POWER in town.

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank

How come you have so much time at work to post on this blog? Think it's time to have the Chief call your employer to inform them that you are under investigation by the Atkinson Police Department?

Oh, I know. You don’t fear that because you are on the Chief’s puppet string.

Give me a break!

Bad Moderator…bad citizen.

Anonymous said...

I am a taxpayer in town and, quite frankly, tired of the lawsuits being brought against the town by the same group of people against the same group of people. It costs us all money for the town to defend them.

I wonder if we can propose a new warrant article that, if those who bring a lawsuit against the town lose their case, they are required to reimburse the town for court costs so Atkinson citizens are not stuck having to absorb the hit to our tax base. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

You've got it backwards. If our public officials behaved ethically and lawfully, there would be no lawsuits to file.

Example - Know of anyone who has lost a lawsuit against the town? Not that I recall. As long is our officials behave badly, and do it on video tape no less, they will keep getting sued.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:41 PM,

That's not an answer to the question. Can we propose a warrant article like this?

Anonymous said...

There was a warrant article to prevent the town from paying for legal fees with taxpayers money IF the town employee was being sued as an individual.

It was voted down. Who would vote this down except those who want free legal at your expense? We should not have to pay these bills!!!!

I still think that we should immediately get those warrant articles resigned and submitted for a special meeting. Maybe we can add a few more to the stack too.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question, yes, you can do this but the court allows for this already. The reason town is always stuck with the bill is because the town officials keep losing the suits.

Anonymous said...

How many suits have been ruled against the town in the last 5 years? Please list with dates ...
Also how many suits are currently pending.... thanks for response
in advance

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous Said February 5, 2009 5:14 PM

In order to save time please see: regarding your question. Once you have reviewed this, please ask any additional question you may have.

Thank you for becoming involved in local issues.

Anonymous said...

That is a great idea, but NONE OF THESE SUITS HAVE LOST YET!

How about if the plaintiffs are found to be right, the town officials pay!

Anonymous said...

It appears 5 suits current
1 suit aginst Chief won but no payout
1 suit by grant to remove selectman but lost
I see alot of docs but appear to be all the same suit
{last 5 years}

MAcciard said...

Acciard v. Consentino 05-e-0384, ORDER 5/10/05. Consentino to recuse himself from discussing, deliberating, voting on police, elderly, town employee matters.

Acciard v. Consentino 05-e-0384, ORDER 9/6/05, Consentino found in CONTEMPT OF COURT for violating previous Order.

Consentino NH Supreme Court appeal, dismissed, lack of standing.

Grant v. Town of Atkinson 06-e-056, Settled by Town. Town's insurer paid $30,000 to settle, with agreement never to criticize those issues again.

Polito v. Town of Atkinson, Dismissed lack of Standing.

Acciard v. Town of Atkinson, et al. 07-C- 1039, in Progress, Town dismissed, Court want case to proceed solely against Consentino, if verdict reached, then proceed against Sapia.


Settlements, and tens of thousands in legal fees, for what?

Anonymous said...

so last poster was right ? majority of suits are pending and
the rest were all the same acciard suit and grants
franks suit doesn't count as it was dismissed quickly?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:57,

Correct! And the civil right suit that Mark is talking about is from Leon Artus and Gary Brownfield. So basically all the current suits are from Mark, and potentially future suits are from Leon and Gary. And what do they have in common?


Anonymous said...

There was a warrant article to prevent the town from paying for legal fees with taxpayers money IF the town employee was being sued as an individual.

It was voted down. Who would vote this down except those who want free legal at your expense? We should not have to pay these bills!!!!

When this was discussed at the deliberative session, the point was made that they cannot get anyone to run for elected positions right now. And you want to make it so the three stooges can sue you and you pay out of pocket?

On this topic someone was proposing "they" go after Frank Polito personally AND his estate! Oh, and throw him in jail. Pathetic, really!

Curt Springer said...

An earlier poster asked:

I wonder if we can propose a new warrant article that, if those who bring a lawsuit against the town lose their case, they are required to reimburse the town for court costs so Atkinson citizens are not stuck having to absorb the hit to our tax base. Thoughts?

I don't know terribly much about civil law. But my understanding is that in NH, the general principle is that each party pays its own expenses. I believe that there are provisions in certain cases for one party to have to pay the other party's expenses.

In any case, I can say that this is determined by state laws and court rules, and not subject to town votes.

Anonymous said...

Throw them all in jail........

I dare anyone to type police fraud on timesheets in to google.... Many town works have been fired; have had jail time and mostly just restitution

Its a misdemeanor / theft and punishable by the law....It starts with the LT then to chief and finally the board of selectmen.

It is fraud against the taxpayers of Atkinson.

Look at Methuen MA their police chief did the same thing (just larger scale) does he have a job?

Anonymous said...

"And what do they have in common?

Have you read Mark's suit on the tax payers site? If not, do that before commenting again. Read the Pike case also. If you did read it, do you think Mark made all this up? Do you think what happened to Mark is part of a CNHT conspiracy? Do you think what Mark has experienced is right?

Maybe Mark can clarify this. We all know Leon and Brownfield are associated with CNHT, and they have made no attempt to claim otherwise. So what? But, I've never heard of Mark's name associated with CNHT. He signed a petition. So did at least 49 other people. Are they in on the conspiracy also?

CNHT has figured prominently in this discussion because Leon brought them in. Again, so what?

This I will say. I do not agree with CNHT on their "Take the Pledge" view. I believe that view of things is depriving NH of a great deal of tax revenue now going to MASS. Also, their comments here have started to take the low road, and hurt their credibility in the process. You want to make a convincing augment, don't stoop to school boy techniques. I want what they want as far as town government goes, but I think they are doing it all wrong.

MAcciard said...

Excuse me, to poster @ 6:14,

I represented myself, in my ethics case against the chief, as I am doing now. CNHT, is not involved in my current case, nor were they involved in the previous one, nor were they involved in the Grant's case, they did that one themselves as well.

What does it say, when individuals, representing themselves, win against the town with its $500/hr. insurance company attornies?

MAcciard said...

I DO agree with CNHT's Pledge, although for attribution purposes, I believe it was first stated by former Gov. Meldrim Thompson.

Once you open the door to broad based taxes, like income or sales, we become Mass.

Mass. started out with a 1% tax too, now look at them, Sales, excise, income school tax, and property taxes in N. Andover and many other border towns are higher than in Atkinson, ON TOP of those other taxes.

Once you let the genie out, there is no getting him back in.

Anonymous said...

Monday, September 29, 2008
Give'm Enough Rope- From Ed Naile @ CNHT
From Ed Naile at

Give'm Enough Rope

As usual, I got a tip that a public body was going to have a “non-public” meeting which was in all likelihood a public meeting that just innocently wandered off the path. In this case it was this Friday, Sept. 26 morning at the Attorney General’s Office – Charitable Trust Division in Concord. The attendees were to be two Atkinson Selectmen and their new Town Administrator. Throw in another guy, our surprise attendee, an activist Atkinson taxpayer we will call, “Mark”. Mark spotted a posting of a non-public meeting at the AG’s office and called me as well.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...recognize the law firm? Mr. Artus and Brownfield, would you mind tell us if you are personally paying for 100% of your costs?

NH Attorney General and Secretary of State Agree with NHAC

By CNHT | November 26, 2008

November 26, 2008
New Hampshire Advantage Coalition Joins State of New Hampshire in Defending State Taxpayers against Concord’s City Council. Hearing is continued to January 2009

November 26th, 2008, Concord, NH- Despite being reviewed and approved by 3 state agencies, and the local ballot group who put the initiative up, Concord City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh has challenged a tax and spending restriction charter amendment for the city in the Merrimack Superior Court. The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition will be joining the State in defending the rights of New Hampshire Taxpayers to limit taxes and spending through citizen initiatives in chartered communities. The hearing that was scheduled for today will be continued till January 2009.

New Hampshire Advantage Coalition Chairman Mike Biundo once again expressed his disappointment in the suit and reinforced his commitment to the taxpayers of New Hampshire.

“What is the city government of Concord so afraid of?” Biundo asked of the city council.

“The citizens of Concord have a fundamental right to enact a charter amendment that limits both taxes and spending,” said Biundo. “Tax and spending caps have been a part of New Hampshire for over twenty years. Each cap proposal has been carefully written to withstand the scrutiny of three separate state agencies, all which are working to make sure that the language conforms to state law.”

Biundo described the case as a “political ploy.” The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition had originally intended to have the charter amendment on the ballot for voters to adopt for 2008, but it was blocked by the city council.

“We had enough signatures, and the council stalled the taxpayers and ran out the clock,” said Biundo. “Now we know why. They wanted time to file suit against the initiative.”

The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition will join the state on defending taxpayers write to petition their government and control their taxes.

“These charter amendments go through a thorough review process. The Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Department of Revenue Administration have all signed a letter stating that they ‘do not object to the proposed amendment to the existing charter. We have hired the Law form of Douglas, Leonard and Garvey and will be joining the state in its defense of the rights of local taxpayers,’” said Biundo. “Ballot initiatives by the people and for the people such as this one shouldn’t be decided in court because a certain city council can’t figure out how to cut spending.”

For more information please contact: Matt Murphy of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition (603)-475-8435 (cell), or write:

Anonymous said...

Well, this topic is not about income taxes, and I hope we can agree to disagree on this. I only brought it up because thousands of NH residents work in Mass and pay a 5% income tax, for which we get nothing in return. I hate it, but we cannot fix it. If NH had a income tax, no matter the amount, at least some of that money we pay would stay here. In other words, we have to pay it, we have no choice. But we'd rather it help NH than MASS.

I don't like either, but for me, it the lesser of two evils. All I that I would ask is that CNHT at least consider a broader view rather than blindly stick to the "Pledge" view. That state is hurt'n. So is Mass. I'd much rather my taxes benefit NH.

I have complained about this inequity for a long time. I have written to the state. I've written to the newspapers, lots of newspapers. Some of the papers responded, the state did nothing. We're talking billions that now is going to Mass but would do us much more good. So, I do not blindly support the Pledge. It is not a black or white issue for me. All I'm asking of CNHT is to consider what the pledge really involves in its entirety. Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Anonymous said...

This blog needs to take a deep breath and refocus; it's looking like a 3 ring circus right now.

There's too much flailing about with regard to the picture taking controversy.



Curt Springer said...

I've worked in Mass for 27 years, so have paid a lot of Mass income tax.

If NH were to institute an income tax, Mass would still get just as much money out of us as it does now. Our paychecks are cut in Mass and the deduction will still happen per Mass law.

If NH were to institute an income tax, the question on the table would not be how much less we would pay to Mass, but, rather, how much credit would NH give us for taxes paid to Mass. Most likely NH would give us a credit for money paid to Mass, so as long as the NH rate were the same or lower than the Mass rate we would pay nothing to NH on our Mass employment income. But Mass has the right to tax all income earned in the state, and NH has the right to tax all income earned by its residents, including in Mass, and neither is obliged to give you a credit for taxes paid to the other state on the same income.

So if NH put in a 3% tax, the worst case is you would pay 8%, 5% to Mass and 3% to NH. (I used "5%" for Mass but the actual percentage is higher, I think).

Anonymous said...

After reading all these comments by and about Mr. Naile and CNHT and their activities I have to admit that I am impressed by them. It is great to see Mr. Naile and others stand up to those in Atkinson who are acting to deprive us of your rights. I saw how the deliberative meeting on Saturday got corrupted. I was there. What I witnessed was mobocracy, not democracy. I will contact CNHT on their web site and join up. I will volunteer my time and help fight for justice and fair taxation and fair representation. By tomorrow, I am a member of CNHT. Thank you Mr. Naile for your commitment. I am encouraged for the first time that change is possible in Atkinson. --I am a citizen of Atkinson and a registered voter and I mean every word of what I just wrote so help me God!

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 10:11pm; Frank?

So what does it matter if they are paying their fees or the firm takes it on contingency?

We pay all of our goobers legals fees, EVERY TIME THEY DO WRONG! EVERY TIME THEY LOSE!

So, by "shooting the messenger" are you trying to say, that what Frank and Jack did at the meeting was right?

Are you trying to say that all of the illegal stuff Phil has done in the last 5 years was right?

Lets see you defend the issues instead of shooting the messengers!

But you cant! thats why you guys always attack the critics, isn't that how you ended up in court with Acciard?

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:23 AM,

I'm happy to defend and here you go...

It is a matter of interpretation and, if it goes to court, that will be for the judge to decide. However, in my opinion, Mr. Brownfield was causing a disturbance and no one here seems to take issue that he was tampering with taxpayer funded equipment.

1. Mr. Brownfield was informed he was causing a disturbance and was given two warnings AND told he would be escorted out of the auditorium is he disrupted the meeting again.

2. For every call to question, Frank let the legislative body second the call and vote and whether to call the question to vote. In other words he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Despite what you think, EVERYTHING that took place at the meeting was legal. Carol Grant, although unhappy with the meeting, has said this as well.

Your only response to this will be that those in favor of the citizens petitions were outnumbered. And you have to ask yourselves why that was? You can complain all you want about the lack of advance notification, however I suspect those people -- like ourselves -- who are aware of town politics KNEW about the meeting anyway. You have NO WAY of knowing what those undecided voters would have done. And it is their own fault if they didn't bother finding out about the meeting. They probably wouldn't have shown up anyway.

Someone posted a like to Robert's Read AND THINK about this line:

The assembly rules - they have the final say on everything!
Silence means consent!

You can keep complaining all you want. The bottom line is this:


What happened on Saturday was perfectly legal. The only thing you can hang your hat on is the photo incident and that is tenuous at best. Causing a disturbance at a public meeting vs. civil rights violation. It is up to the judge to decide.

BTW, I happened to tape the meeting and, unless there were multiple cameras running at the same time it is impossible to know from the tape if Mr. Brownfield's or Mr. Polito's account of what happened is accurate. IMPOSSIBLE!

So your next plan is to try and do away with deliberative session? I'm sure the citizens of this town will love you even more when Lewis Builders or HAWC starts filing citizens petitions and we will not be able to amend at deliberative session. It goes both ways, you know?

Anonymous said...

The court will not care nor take int account what Mr. Brownfield did or did not do. Nor does it matter. Only the conduct complained against will be heard. Mitigation is not a defense to CR violations.

Anonymous said...

Ok, Frank;

1.) He was sitting in his seat snapping pics of the BOS and the Moderator. Camera NEVEr pointed at the audience. How is that a disturbance?

2.) Frank decided that this man exercising his right, under law, WAS the disturbance.

3.) When the man told Frank, calmly that he was wrong and he had the right to do this, Frank, threatened him with expulsion.

4.) The placing his hat over the ACTV camera came AFTER all of this, and in response to FRANK's statement that he "want(ed) no cameras" Not the smartest move, but he can claim he was trying to comply with Frank's outlandish request.

5.) You are correct, with the exception of Frank denying this guy his rights, the rest of that circus, the moving of the articles, calling of the question, and the rest of Jack's parliamentary tactics were legal. Not necessarily right, but legal.

But it should be obvious that Frank began the disturbance, because he could not stand being told in front of people that he was wrong! And he was.

And the subsequent threatening of this guy, by both Jack and Frank, Jack with a cop, and Frank by invoking his lawyer, were only adding fuel to the fire that they had created.

As for petition warrant articles, I could care less if Lewis builders put petitioned articles on the ballot that could not be ammended. They go to ballot, and the people vote!

That is what a republic is all about!

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank, I know you are always the smartest guy in the room and all, but please explain to me this bit about they guy not being able to take pictures, when anybody else in that room could, and you didnt say anything?

And please explain how this little temper tantrum of yours made sense the day after you were notified that you are being sued for civil rights violations?

You just gave them another one!

Curt Springer said...

I don't think Atkinson's experience is any basis for changing the laws about how we conduct municipal government in NH, which of course would affect Danville too.

Every system has its pluses and minuses, its flaws and ways to game it. But overall I think the one we have (for SB2 towns) is pretty good. If you tinker with it there will just be more unintended consequences.

So before you guys go up to Concord to try to change the rules, I suggest that you make more of an effort to work within the system that we have. I don't just mean the deliberative session, I'm also thinking of warrant articles that are technically incorrect or which try to have the town take power not granted by the state, or which try to usurp the lawful authority or discretion of elected officials.

What I am saying here is no different from what I have said and will continue to say in my own town. We (meaning the people involved in town government in a town) would all get along better and make better decisions more quickly and with less fighting if we would all make an effort to understand and follow the rules. The rights and responsibilities of the town versus the state, and within a town, the powers and checks and balances between the town meeting, officials and boards is well defined under state law.

But I often see in my own town, and am seeing here in yours, that people want to follow rules of their own making.

It's none of my business how you run your town, I know that. But I don't want your experience to have an impact on how we govern ourselves in Danville. And that is not to say we are perfect or better in Danville. We are not.

Anonymous said...

RE: February 6, 2009 10:01 AM

Some clarification: With the exception of the money warrants which have to be discussed first, movement of warrant articles is permitted if requested by a citizen, which in this case was Jack Sapia. Frank, at least directly, was not responsible for this.

As far as "Call The Vote": Frank made one change this year that I fully approve off. You can no longer call the vote from the audience. This has been abused in the past.

So, it was Jack who requested movement and the audience approved it.

Legally, they did nothing wrong. However, there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. What we saw was a well choreographed subversion of the process in order to make the warrants meaningless, and to limit discussion.

Now, they got away with this for one reason, and one reason alone. The audience was overwhelming Pro-chief. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out if you were either there or watching.


This has happened year after year. Citizen petitions fail because there are not enough supporters present.

And, if you expect logic and reason will change the outcome - Well, forget it.

You need bodies in the seats and if you don't make that happen, you lose. Don't take my word for it. We all saw it happen.

Anonymous said...

On big reason the average town citizen was not present was they feared INTIMIDATION. They feared their vote would be taken note of. Can you blame em? Isn't it obvious to anyone with a brain?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Springer's post and Anon 11:43 are excellent points to consider. The sad fact is this group will not accept that they did not have enough support for this going into Saturday's meeting. They most likely never did and never will.

Mr. Springer, Ed Naile has been posting that he will be working in Concord to try and ammend these laws regarding SB2. So I suggest you watch closely what is going on up there over the next year or so. I'm sure he has an ear or two of some state representative.

Anon 12:22, I am so tired of the intimidation EXCUSE. And it is just that. I notice Mr. Acciard, who appears to be the biggest victim of "intimidation" attends almost all of these sessions. And imagine if there was a really large that would have been something to take note of!

Silence (or non attendance)equals consent. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Springer? I don't read his postings. I see his name and just scroll down.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:29,

Thanks for proving my point that the majority of the anti-Chief folks here only read what they want to read and believe what they want to believe no matter how far from the truth it really is.

Anonymous said...

It is my right not to read Springer's postings. Danville citizens needs his attention for more than we do. He could service them with his limited time and energy and bring justice to Danville.

MAcciard said...

This is true, I do try to attend town meetings, and I do not hide my ciriticsms, but, in retrospect, If I had known that asking the chief of police to quit dealing with police issues as a selectman, was going to blow up into everything that has transpired...

I probably would have bit my tongue, and kept my mouth shut too.

So, given everything that I have been through, I fully understand those that are afraid or intimidated to put their names out there, because, make no mistake, they are putting their families into harm's way. If you don't believe me ask Brian Kaye, or many others.

I continue to speak up because I have nothing left to lose. My town can do no worse to me than it, and it's police chief have already done, in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

What an arrogant hypocrit!

He lectures us on the law, and he is not only wrong, but breaking the very law he is lecturing us about!

I am sick of the smartest guy in the room!

Try some humble pie, Frank!

Anonymous said...


“Chiefo pulls the strings and the select board puppet of three jump under the table with hands over lips, eyes, and ears. Oh lordy, lordy, skeered of him. Mommy, mommy, mommy...I need my mommy.”
February 9, 2009 6:05 PM

AND retract the following:

“Whatever they are, these are not men. A man is a ROCK WITH A HEART. Not a coward to a bully with a badge.”
February 9, 2009 6:09 PM

I retract those statements. I should have made my comments more statesmanlike and said it in such a way as to make a contribution. The Chief does seem to obtain what he wishes from the select board. That is my observation. But I retract my implication the Selectmen do not attempt to ever stand up or make a decision from fear. On occasion that may be a motivation. But on other occasions, each selectman has, in my opinion, stood up for their on ideas and made decisions that were respectable, even when under considerable pressure. There are always two sides to a story. And I am not privy to every story.
I also retract my statement that the Selectmen are not men. Each sitting selectman stood up and ran for office against opposition. That is not a cowardly act. Each has taken on a low paying job to give back directly to the community. This is manly (or womanly). And each has donated time away from their families to fellow citizens. It takes courage to stick your neck out.

Chief Concentino? He has done some kind actions for the elderly that were genuine and taken so by them. No man is without some merit. Yet it appears some elderly do not receive assistance that they need. That requires change. And Mr. Consentino, in my opinion, must be very careful not to step over the line when it involves intimidation of citizen’s rights when acting in his official capacity. The court records on the Atkinson Taxpayers Association indicate a pattern that warrants a serious modification of his behavior.

Everyone has some good in them. And it is also true that we are all responsible to control our own “dark side” so that “dark side” does not impair our own families, relationships, neighbors, associates and professions. We can all make a positive difference in the lives of others…if we do that.

So, with my two retractions being made and with calm judgment: I say now that it is important for our Selectmen and other Atkinson town officials in general, to follow the laws and obey a higher standard of ethics than average. You assumed positions of leadership and trust and that carries enormous responsibility.

Many citizens’ rights were recently violated in Atkinson sufficient to generate lawsuits. In my opinion, all these violations were neglectful and injurious and unnecessary.

The other side of the story: I have noticed (and heard of) more kindness and consideration shown from our Selectman and the selectman’s office recently. This is a welcome change, it is noticeable, and it is appreciated by me and I bet by others.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that in a genuine emergency, we will all be digging in and fighting from the same foxhole. All of us! All would pull together and help each other out. And if I saw anyone’s home was on fire, I would risk my life to help him/her and the family get to safety.