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.

Monday, March 2, 2009

The Text of the Newest Lawsuit against the Town is now available!

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/pdf/DouglasVsAtkinson.pdf


So Finally, there it is!

The question that each of us should be asking ourselves is; How would WE feel, what would WE do, if these things were done to us?

What would YOU do if you saw a selectman who is also a police chief VOTE on police matters?

What would YOU do if you worked to get signatures for a petition warrant article for a full time chief, and the chief of police called your signers, and intimidated them into attempting to withdraw their names?

What would YOU do if the Town Moderator, in the commission of his official duties, prevented you from exercising your right to photograph the meeting?, And misquoted law to you, then threatened you with removal if you kept trying to use your rights?

What would YOU do if after all these things happened to you, you were talked about at meetings? or sued? or labelled as a crank, or a troublemaker, because you decided you were not going to take it any more?

The answer is we all reach a point where we refuse to take the abuse any longer. This is the point where lawsuits are the only option left. When the selectmen refuse to act, when one corrupt individual can drive in his supporters to get anything he wants passed, or destroyed, where do you go for justice?

When one man can abuse the authority of his badge to write official threatening letters, and the town does nothing, it is time for the silent, the afraid, the meek, the intimidated to rise up and put an end to this corruption in our town.

Here are some of the highlights;

III. Factual Background
13. This case arises out of the defendants’ violations of the plaintiffs’ and other Atkinson citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and to petition and have fair access to their government officials and proceedings, as guaranteed to them by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and New Hampshire law.
14. The defendants have engaged in an organized conspiracy to suppress the views of the plaintiffs, which are critical of the defendants’ conduct in their official positions. The conspiracy involves the Atkinson Chief of Police, its current and former Selectmen, and the Town’s current Moderator. Each of these individuals has taken part in organizing and furthering the purpose of the conspiracy, which is to intimidate, humiliate and oppress the plaintiffs and other similarly-situated Atkinson residents for attempting to voice their opposing viewpoint to certain decisions of their police chief and local government.


16. Despite being certified only as a part-time police officer, Chief Consentino defends his “turf” as head of the police department and Elderly Affairs Director with an iron fist, using and abusing the authority granted by his position to intimidate, bully, and retaliate against citizens who question his actions or oppose his views on various issues.
17. Chief Consentino’s intimidating and retaliatory actions have been the subject of a multitude of lawsuits and other official adjudications since 1981. Despite the multiple monetary settlements and findings that Chief Consentino has inappropriately abused his position as police chief, the Town of Atkinson has established a pattern and practice of permitting Chief Consentino continue to violate citizens’ constitutional rights – particularly their rights to free speech and to petition their government – with virtual impunity. He runs the Town of Atkinson like a stereotypical southern sheriff of the 1920’s.
18. The instant case is just the latest in a long line of well-documented violations of citizens’ rights by Chief Consentino, which have been allowed and approved explicitly or tacitly by the Selectmen of Atkinson. Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield, Steven Lewis, and other Atkinson citizens in their positions are but the latest victims of Chief Consentino’s flagrant abuses of power.


22. The citizen-signed petitions were filed at the Atkinson Town Offices on January 13, 2009. Within an hour of the petitions being filed with the Town Clerk, and before the petitions had even been verified by the Town Clerk, Chief Consentino had been provided copies of them by other Town of Atkinson officials, and was phone-calling citizens who had signed them.
23. Many of the citizens who received calls from Chief Consentino were elderly, and thus reliant upon the Elderly Affairs Office for services. It is known that Chief Consentino angrily demanded from one citizen an explanation as to why his family “signed this shit?”
24. Not surprisingly, within 24 hours many of the citizens who received the intimidating and angry phone calls from Chief Consentino began calling Mr. Artus, Mr. Brownfield, and others who worked to have the petitions signed, as well as the Town Offices, to request that their signatures be removed from the warrant article petitions.
25. Chief Consentino’s use of his authority as Police Chief and Director of the Elderly Affairs office to intimidate Atkinson citizens into remaining silent on issues which affect his public positions constitutes an abuse of his office and a violation of those citizens’ and Mr. Artus’ and Mr. Brownfield’s First Amendment rights to petition their government.


B. The Atkinson Select Board’s Complicity and Tacit Approval of Chief Consentino’s Suppression of First Amendment Freedoms through Official Intimidation:

26. Chief Consentino’s conduct with regard to the citizen-petitioned warrant articles filed in January of 2009 would be alarming enough if it were the first time it had ever happened. However, it is not the first time that Chief Consentino has been allowed to abuse the authority of his official position to jealously protect his interests, to the detriment of Atkinson citizens’ rights.
27. To the contrary, the Town of Atkinson has a nearly three decades old record of allowing Chief Consentino to engage in abuses of power and coercion of citizens who dare to stand up to him, without any meaningful consequence to him.
For instance:

a) In 1981, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against Chief Consentino by then-Atkinson resident Wayne Peak, alleging that the Chief had engaged in a plan to discredit, disgrace, and coerce Mr. Peak by repeatedly charging him with baseless motor vehicle and criminal complaints, resulting in Mr. Peak being forced to move out of state to avoid Chief Consentino’s harassment. The harassment began after Mr. Peak filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Chief Consentino to account for monies collected by the Police Department. Upon information and belief, this lawsuit resulted in a significant monetary settlement in Mr. Peak’s favor. Despite that, the Town of Atkinson did nothing to change or eliminate Chief Consentino’s propensity for retaliating against political opponents or abusing his power as police chief.

b) In 1999, the Public Employee Labor Relations Board ruled that Chief Consentino had engaged in a pattern of harassment, intimidation, and coercion against members of the Atkinson Police Department who sought to unionize. The PELRB’s Order of December 23, 1999, stated that “[s]uch fears, interference, domination and coercion must be abated. The Town’s conduct, through its agent and employee is, taken as a whole, violative of RSA 273-A:5.” Despite this documented finding of overt bullying toward even his fellow police officers, the Board of Selectmen continue to this day to allow Chief Consentino to go on abusing his position of power and trust. See Tab C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

c) In 2000, plaintiff Steven Lewis circulated a petition for a warrant article to have a full-time police chief appointed. See Tab D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The warrant article in question was much like the one that Mr. Artus circulated this year. Chief Consentino responded by visiting Mr. Lewis’ office, leaving his cruiser running outside. Inside the office, he loudly and abusively castigated Mr. Lewis for having the audacity to initiate the petition. Chief Consentino then followed up by contacting a local police chief and attempting to torpedo Mr. Lewis’ son’s application for employment. This incident was widely reported, and yet Chief Consentino still holds his position as Chief.

d) In 2005, Chief Consentino flagrantly violated Orders of the Rockingham County Superior Court in a case initiated by resident Mark Acciard that required Consentino to leave Selectmen’s meetings at any time the agenda turned to matters involving the Police Department or Elderly Affairs Office. See Tab E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. He ignored the judge’s order and was found to be in contempt of court by Judge McHugh. See Tab F attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Chief Consentino retaliated against Mark Acciard by charging him with trumped up traffic offenses and contacting vendors for Mr. Acciard’s business to tell them that Mr. Acciard was “under investigation by the Atkinson Police Department.” Chief Consentino’s retaliatory behavior against Mr. Acciard resulted in yet another defamation and civil rights lawsuit being filed against the Town, which is currently pending in this Court as Docket No. 07-C-1039.

e) Also in 2003, Chief Consentino retaliated against Atkinson resident Leigh Komornick after she raised concerns about an illegally established firing range used by the Atkinson Police Department near her property. The Chief of the Haverhill Massachusetts Police Department taped Chief Consentino calling Leigh Komornick a “f—king whackjob” or words to that effect in an attempt to silence and embarrass her into dropping her complaint about the illegal firing range.

f) In 2006, former Selectwoman Carol Grant filed a petition to have Consentino removed from his position as Chief of Police. Her petition cited a lengthy history of rogue behavior which would have justified removing Chief Consentino from the position which he so frequently abused. See Tab G attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Among other things, Chief Consentino unlawfully taped Ms. Grant during a conversation, in violation of New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute, and then destroyed the evidence of that illegally taped conversation. Despite these serious violations of the law, the Selectmen took no meaningful action to curb Chief Consentino’s flagrant abuses of his official position. A lawsuit filed by Ms. Grant resulted in the Town being forced to pay out another settlement because of the Chief’s outrageous conduct, yet he still holds his position and continues to abuse it with the knowledge and apparent complicity of the Select Board.

g) Also in 2006, Chief Consentino angrily erupted during a Board of Selectmen’s meeting when a citizen, Brian Kaye, read a prepared statement concerning his opposition to Chief Consentino’s plan to expand use of a communications tower near Kaye’s property. Consentino’s rude and belittling responses to Mr. Kaye’s concerns were then followed up by his sending Mr. Kaye two threatening letters, on police department stationary, demanding that Mr. Kaye provide him copies of his prepared statement. This is yet another example of the Chief abusing his position to intimidate a citizen who dared to speak out against him. See Tabs H and I, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. When Mr. Kaye’s attorney wrote the Selectmen to complain about Consentino’s conduct the letters were ignored and went unanswered for over a year. See Tabs J and K attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

h) During the early 2008 election cycle, several temporary political lawn signs put up by the “Atkinson Reporter Blog,” a website dedicated to observing and reporting on matters of public interest in the Town of Atkinson, were taken down by order of the Atkinson Board of Selectmen. The Atkinson Reporter Blog supported candidates opposing the sitting Board of Selectmen and Chief Consentino, and publicized criticism of the actions of Chief Consentino and the Board. Some of the removed signs were seen in the Atkinson Police Station. Then-Selectman Jack Sapia claimed that he obtained clearance from the Town’s counsel to remove the signs – a claim which was later publicly refuted by Selectman Paul Sullivan. The advice had been not to remove the signs.


Read it and judge for yourself, if those things had been done to you, What would YOU DO?

Is it RIGHT for a public official to act in this manner?

Why have WE as a Town allowed this Reign of Terror to continue for 30 years?

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

I didn't know all of this had happened. This is incredible! this is just so wrong!

Anonymous said...

This has to be history in the making. I don't ever remember our selectmen allowing us to see what actual lawsuits are about. They always try to hide behind "It's an on going legal matter and they can't discuss it".

Finally, we taxpayers can follow this as events unfold. This is better than a "Soap Opera".

Anonymous said...

went to

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/pdf/DouglasVsAtkinson.pdf

read the TABS. The lawsuit is detailed.

Anonymous said...

Hey Gary. What, you weren't getting enough hits you had to bring this over here?

Anonymous said...

Hey Phil,

I found a new job for you. Please read below and apply.

City of Franklin, NH (Pop. 8,667). The City of Franklin seeks a seasoned law enforcement professional to become its next Chief of Police. The department is operating under an Interim Chief, who is not a candidate for the position. The City requires a progressive law enforcement leader who is capable of guiding the police department through the challenges of servicing a dynamic and growing community located in accessible central New Hampshire. The department enjoys tremendous community support and is currently undergoing dramatic changes in its operation.

The Police Chief is a full-time, department head position responsible for supervising, directing, and managing all administrative and technical aspects of the Department. Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing is required as well as thorough knowledge of modern administration and practices including community policing concepts. The Chief of Police reports directly to the City Manager and must be capable of developing positive relationships with employees, city officials, and the public as well as have an ability to direct the development of the departmental budget and budget adherence throughout the year. The City requires a collaborative and accessible Chief who fosters an environment where safety, teamwork, and public responsiveness are paramount.

Successful candidates will possess in-depth knowledge of law enforcement administration and services. Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice or related field from an accredited college is strongly desired. Certification by the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council (or transferable certificate) with ten years of progressively responsible experience in law enforcement and four years of senior supervisory experience required. Please direct a cover letter, resume, salary requirements, and at least five references to Elizabeth A. Corrow, City Manager, 316 Central Street, Franklin, New Hampshire 03235. A detailed job description is available upon request. Interested candidates may contact the Interim Chief for more information at 603.934.7159. Salary: The City of Franklin offers a competitive benefit package. Salary DOQ/E. Closing Date: Review of applicants will begin immediately.

Oh wait you don’t qualify.....


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

Anonymous said...

The town is a comparable size to Atkinson and they get to have a real, qualified full time Chief. Wow. Lucky them. What did we do to deserve this?

Anonymous said...

Here is a new slogan for The Town Atkinson. “Home of bewildered and afraid”

Anonymous said...

The defendants should feel bewildered and afraid.

Anonymous said...

No, the unwritten slogan for The Town of Atkinson for the last thirty years has been “Home of the Atkinson Mafia. We will CRUSH YOU and YOUR GOOD NAME if you question anything we do"

That slogan is about to change permanently, along with the Mafia Members.

The new battle cry is: RICO

(commonly referred to as RICO Act or ) The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Anonymous said...

WHERE IS THE TOWN REPORT?

TITLE III
TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES
CHAPTER 31
POWERS AND DUTIES OF TOWNS
Miscellaneous
Section 31:95
31:95 Budget. – Immediately upon the close of the fiscal year the budget committee in towns where such committees exist, otherwise the selectmen, shall prepare a budget on blanks prescribed by the commissioner of revenue administration; provided, however, that any full-time employee of the town, village district, school district or other associated agencies shall be ineligible to serve on the budget committee. Such budget shall be posted with the town warrant and shall be printed in the town report at least one week before the date of the town meeting.

Anonymous said...

Witch hunt. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

WHERE IS THE TOWN REPORT?

Anonymous said...

Gary, nice attempt to direct attention away from you. Isn't it interesting. The first attempt to tell the truth, you blame the chief for perpetrating a lie. I'm undecided. Are you a victim or just an idiot?

Come on. Be truthful. After all, isn't that you want? The truth.

You are suing the town, we all know that. You've created forum so you to could get your additional digs in.

This forum is not about freedom of speech. It is all about one man's spite, and a pitiful attempt at it.

You have a good lawyer. You may have a case. Why are you so insistent on being a victim.

Come on, show some balls. Tell us what this forum is all about.

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank this forum was created a year before this suit, Oh, wait, when yu are spinning the facts, the spin is all that matters

Anonymous said...

To Anon: March 2, 2009 9:30 PM

If you need to be told what this forum is all about, you should not be calling someone else an "Idiot".


If you don't acknowledge that X chief phil consentino is the town's biggest problem, then you didn't read the suit.

If you don't realize the suit is directed against a few people that think they control this town, then there is no hope for you.

If you support the Mafia.........then you will go down with them.

If you don't realize that this is MORE than just freedom of speech, ..........well.........don't try to divert the subject of your being the. Id-ot.

Anonymous said...

To Anon: March 2, 2009 9:30 PM

Thanks phil for your idiocy. Thank goodness we won't have to put up with it much longer.

Anonymous said...

If this forum is only about one person, why does it have thousands of hits?

*** crickets ***

Anonymous said...

"Crickets" :)
I know who you are, I named my cat Crickets after you. :)

Anonymous said...

Why didn't the selectmen put a stop to this?

They yell at Teddy for knocking over mailboxes when he plows but they let Phil get away with ALL of this?

Anonymous said...

First I was the Chief. Now I'm Frank. Hey, I know, they go to a dark room somewhere and write these things together.

Sorry to disappoint. This is coming from someone who has neither met or knows Frank, the chief, the BOS, or anyone else in town government. No affiliation what so ever.

Mr. Brownfield would like you to believe that there is a sinister plot to discredit him. Who needs a plot, he does it to himself.

As long as this blog is controlled by those involved in the fore mentioned suit, it is their bully pulpit, not the citizens.

Just as Leon stepped away from the Selectmans race, the moderator(s) should step away from this blog. They are also suing "US", and yet you depend on them for news. That is wrong.

And all these "hits" the blog is supposedly getting. Means nothing. The source is unreliable, therefore the data.

Anonymous said...

So, mr. no affiliation, how do you "KNOW" who runs this blog, or the Atkinson Factor, or the Atkinson Taxpayers Association websites?

How do you "know" that the hits are unreliable? or not accurate? A hit counter is just that?

Or are you just trying to smear the blog in the hopes that it helps the defendants in this current suit, or any of the other corrupt officials in this town?

Anonymous said...

I was just thinking. Isn't this Polito's THIRD case? There was the ZBA one involving Boyle's subdivision. He was included in Carol's case (which she won, including money. Now this. Most notably, all three were within a period of two or three years. Phil's eight, nine or whatever spanned a 30 year time period.

Anonymous said...

14. The defendants have engaged in an organized conspiracy to suppress the views of the plaintiffs, which are critical of the defendants’ conduct in their official positions. The conspiracy involves the Atkinson Chief of Police, its current and former Selectmen, and the Town’s current Moderator. Each of these individuals has taken part in organizing and furthering the purpose of the conspiracy, which is to intimidate, humiliate and oppress the plaintiffs and other similarly-situated Atkinson residents for attempting to voice their opposing viewpoint to certain decisions of their police chief and local government.

Anonymous said...

AMEN!

Anonymous said...

" Or are you just trying to smear the blog in the hopes that it helps the defendants in this current suit, or any of the other corrupt officials in this town?"

Absolutely not. If the courts find them guilty, I'm good with that.

All I'm trying to point out is basically, "consider the source" when you read here.

I've already laid out my reasons, twice, why I know who runs this thing. Not going to do it every time someone asks. One got deleted. Now why would that happen? If the second one got deleted, I have it in a TXT document. I'll just have to cut and paste again.

BTW - on hits: There are search engines out there, like Goggle and Yahoo, that constantly scour the internet for data. This can happen several times a day. Each visit is a hit. Also, when you go from page to page, that is a hit. The number means nothing and does in no way reflect the true number of readers. The number sounds good so that is why people use it.

Anonymous said...

what about the number of visitors? or hosts? 5900 is a lot for a small town like Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing about Phil harrassing Lewis back in 1999 or 2000 or so, but I never believed it. Phil said it was just "people with vendettas attacking his good name"

I believed him, I don't anymore, I have seen too much.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:21,

Unique visitors are very difficult to track. People in the same household logging into the site from different PC's could potentially be counted as an unique visitor. People who check the blog from home, work, and elsewhere could be an unique visitor from every location. Also, the people who may log into the blog to read and then post using an anonymous proxy server would also be counted twice as an unique visitor. And that doesn't even get into knowing how the actual blog clears/resets data daily, weekly, or monthly. Fun, isn't it?

So it is certainly a less than perfect number and an imperfect way to monitor. My sense is the true number of unique visitors is much, much lower than the number you see on the counter.

By the way monitoring hits is as useless as a screen door on a submarine.

Anonymous said...

Wow! A communications technology brain trust. We are in luck!

Anonymous said...

There are actually people in this town who know what they are talking about. And, you know what? Some even hold college degrees. Wow!

The point is, some who enter here assume everyone else is an idiot and they will believe everything they read. All I can say to that is, Caveat Emptor.

It is sorta like newspapers. Papers like the Globe lean to the left. The Eagle Tribune to the right. The National Enquirer to the wacko. Atkinson Report 2 is closer to the wacko persuasion.

Anonymous said...

Saw the new poll. Wow, did I inspire that? I'm honored. And only on this forum could the choices be worded like that. Continues to prove my point.

Anonymous said...

Article Submission:

THE LONG AWAITED - 2008 Atkinson Town Report

I counted the days until March 3rd, the official deadline for submitting the town report. It must be available one week prior to the Town Meeting. In my mind, that would have been one week prior to the BEGINNING of the Town Meeting, held January 31st.

Maybe I'm wrong, hell, I'm just a concerned resident, voter and sucker to live here.

So get out your report folks and hunker down, we have metrics to analyze and dirt to dig up in a very short period of time.

My initial analysis of this lovely document yields a few questions (but I do love the photo of the Town Christmas Tree on Dow Common, sigh ) Maybe some answers will be bubbled up, maybe this will be evidence. Who knows.

1) The dedication was to a private person and I would have preferred that at least it be made to the FOUR individuals who served our town and passed this year. Peter Lewis, Joe DeRosa, Diane Kinney and last but not least John Lapham. May you all rest in eternal love and peace.

Meanwhile, take a look at the rest of the document.

2) Page 6 - WHAT 3 LAWSUITS WERE SETTLED OR WON?

3) Page 6 - What Ad Hoc Technology Committee ( it's not listed herein) so what gives?

4) Page 6 - The PD could not COMMUNICATE with the FD during the ICE STORM. They changed their radios and DID NOT TELL ANYONE.

5) Page 6 - 1400 ELDERLY SERVED IN THE STORM, HOW CAN THIS BE? THE Fire Dept HAS NO LIST of 1400 PEOPLE.

6) Page 9 - Elderly Affairs IS STILL USING THE PD PHONE, THE PD DISPATCH, RESOURCES? Where's the AGO? Where is the Separation?

7) Page 9 - The Elderly Affairs personnel list is embedded in the PD personnel list - hint - notice the PD CHAPLAIN LISTED AFTER EA!!! ibid ( that means, same as above, in LATIN, not Mafia)

8) Page 57 - Stats ? Where are the stats on the crime or anything else for that matter? We want to know ( and have a RTK).

TAKE IT FROM HERE FOLKS - - -
3

Anonymous said...

2

Anonymous said...

1

Anonymous said...

Please vote AGAINST the proposed budget and we will defer to the lower 2008 budget. We must tighten our belts, suck in our pride and our guts or go belly up. (pun intended)

Anonymous said...

What about the infamous "Life Is Not Yet Done Foundation"?

PAGE 73 - sposored 2 eleven week sessions of Senior Wellness Exercise Class.

WHO IS BEHIND THIS FOUNDATION?

Anonymous said...

Interesting the negative commenter makes the same argument over, and over. Keeps talking about how just one person has a personal thing? If this forum was all false and made up, then why do you keep reading and writing on here? Just a thought for you. By the way, there are many of us on the good side, and someday, there will be alot more of us than you. Good will always prevail.

Anonymous said...

If this blog is all the work of one person, how much time do they have to post hundreds of articles, and thousands of comments?

Anonymous said...

RE: Last two

Never did I claim that all the entries were made up and I certainly do no believe that this whole blog is the work of one person. Go back and read again.

What I said is that the moderator is responsible for most of the entries posted on the front page of the blog, you know, the page you first see when you enter the blog.

Their are two ways to post an entry on the front page. 1) Directly or 2) through request.

Only a moderator can make a direct entry. For the rest of the rest of us, we have post an article in another topic, request that it be posted, and hope the moderator complies. Haven't seen a lot of those these days.

I also never claimed every topic was making false claims. You can sure twist the words around. My contention is that the Moderator(s) (there can be more than one) have a fixation on one topic, how they have been wronged.

I'm also not arguing their claims are false. My observation is that we are constantly being reminded how these people have been wronged. Take Mark Acciard for instance. How many of his entries has he made outlining his case? I've lost count. Now we have the great petition signature scandal and the Deliberative Session blow up. Again, I've never argued that none of this is true.

What I have tried to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that in form or another, we are constantly reminded of these incidents by the moderator(s).

This blog is decidedly one sided. If someone from town government were to post here, I have no doubt he'd be beaten into submission. And, there is a very good chance whatever they would say would become part of a lawsuit.

So my point is a simple one. Take everything you read here with a grain of salt, and maybe even entertain the thought there may be another side of the story. You're just not going to here it here.

Anonymous said...

Ok yes there could be another side, but what could it possibly be?

Take any of the scandals revealed, or discussed here. Are any of them defensible?

How would YOU defend any of those actions?

How would YOU defend;

1.) Frank's performance at town meeting?
2.) Phils intimidation of petition signers? ( and this is not the first time)
3.) Phils screaming at critics in live meetings?
4.)Phils treats on town letterhead?
5.)Phil admitting he submitted false sick time vouchers for the Lt.?
or any of the other issues?

Anonymous said...

Ahhh Thank you march 4th at 8:36..I completely agree with you. When a resident defends a town official. Its either Frank, or the chief. oh I think I have even been called Jack..So If a town Official was to post here they would be ridiculed beyond belief..don't believe me i have seen it in the past. If you don't agree with the finding on this blog then your a Henchmen or just an uneducated citizen. Hmmm well..sorry I just don't believe in their conspiracy theory.

timd dziechowski said...

I'm a town official, I post here, and I don't get ridiculed or beaten into submission. But I limit my participation to providing information. Life is too short to waste time defending the indefensible.

I do wish the blogmeister could come up with a way of submitting potential topics without posting them in an unrelated thread. Like maybe email.

Anonymous said...

Supporters of town officials get ridiculed when they make blanket statements, and smear the blog and it posters, while refusing to back up their statements.

If you are going to defend Phil's bullying, dont do it by telling us he does good work with the elderly, tell us why he was justified to bully a resident.

Anonymous said...

I notice this person has nothing to say about the article, and the current lawsuit, just about all of us

Atkinson Reporter said...

If any town official would like to attempt to defend these actions, or has anything to say at all, post a comment, if you wish it to be an article, mark it Article Submission, and as long as it is substantive, and not just an ad hominum personal attack on a resident, it will be posted.

This blog wants debate. It would be nice to have that debate by name, but we understand the need for anonymity, it is displayed for us almost daily.

Anonymous said...

I love the Chief and all he stand for. I read the first part of the lawsuit, and I can not see what Phil did wrong. All he did was call a couple of elderly that he had helped in the past, and was wondering why they signed a petition. It's a free country and I would have wanted to know, if I were he.

He has done so much good for the elderly and I'm sure he was just checking to see if they knew what they had signed. No harm, no foul. I think he has EVERY RIGHT to call anyone and everyone that sign those petitions, and I encourage him to do so.

My opinion is this suit will be thrown out of court. Civil Right be damned because he broke no laws.

Phil, if you read this, I'm with you. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

To Anon March 4, 2009 2:10 PM

Ya right. Geeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz and Phil my chimney is clogged. Can you send someone right over to clean it? You got my vote too.

Think I'm about to puck. No wonder this town has become a dictatorship. “KING CONSENTINO RULES” ……………Yuck.

Anonymous said...

"I notice this person has nothing to say about the article, and the current lawsuit, just about all of us"

I think you're referring to me since I've been making all the noise.

1) I've said this before, but will again. What I think about the law suits means nothing. I could express an opinion, but would have no effect. It is now up to a judge, and maybe jury, to determine the merits of the suits. It's like the weather. Talk about it all you want, but you can't change it.

2) Not sure what you mean by us, unless every other person here is a moderator. My issue is with them, not the ordinary poster.

This forum is a lot like Letters to the Editor. The difference is, the moderators let everything through, but they steer the discussions. Just trying to point that out to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Tim,

You are one of the few exceptions to the rule. You've often corrected us when we were wrong, clarified certain positions, and generally have been an all around nice guy and the blog has treated you in kind.

But, lets take an example. Say someone like Jack Sapia or Harold Morse were to publish here under their own names. I dare say, they would not be welcomed with open arms.

Now, I'll admit, they are extreme examples because they are extreme people.

Less extreme are the current candidates for office. If I were one, this is the last place I'd post a position paper. It would be the same as painting a target on their backs and open season has just been declared on anything with a target.

I could be wrong. But, it less than a week before the election. Haven't seen any position papers yet.

Anonymous said...

To Anon March 4, 2009 3:58 PM

What post are you trying to refer to? Can't follow your reasoning. Want to know if you read the lawsuit and your opinion. Isn't that what the submission article was asking?

Anonymous said...

I did indeed read the lawsuit. And again I say, what I think about it means nothing.

Now that a law suit has been filed, all of these incidents are now alleged in the eyes of court. It is now the court's job to decide if the allegations have merit. What I think, what you think means diddly to the judge.

We've heard about this law suit and the other so many times the blog should be renamed to Atkinson Lawsuits.

I want to know why the moderators keep renewing the topic. Are they looking for the sympathy vote? Are they hoping that we'll all suddenly burst into rage and storm Town Hall demanding justice?

I have never said that I think these law suits have no merit. Some of the incidents described I actually witnessed. My point is, it is out of our hands now and in the court's. To keep telling me over and over you've been wronged, at this point, means nothing and is getting old.

Anonymous said...

I can't defend Jack Sapia, but I can comment on Harold Morse.

Harold never wanted to do anything else than to be able to supply water to the people he served. It was the State that put pressure on him to expand his water network. Why, because the State DES wants to mandate all towns be interconnected with water supply.

Water is a losing propersition at this time, but it could be very profitable if water supply is mandated by the State later on.

In other words.......the State or Town can pass laws that if the water line was to run past your home on the road, you will be required to hook up on it. (thus mandating that you pay a water bill even though you have a well)

Think about it. What do you think your rights are as compared to what the law will mandate.

Your selectmen want you to pay for water. YOU CAN STOP THAT MANDATE, IF YOU BECOME INVOLVED. The choice is yours....don't complain later for it will be to late.

Anonymous said...

All of these things aren't "alleged" they really happened, most of them on tape!

What I was asking is what do YOU think about them? are they defensible?

Anonymous said...

To Anon March 4, 2009 6:26 PM

Nice dodge. I know that the court will have to decide but your opinion means something. Take a stand about what you have read. If you were on the jury with all this evidence presented and nothing more, how would you vote?

I would say the Chief and other defendants win.

What u say?

I say the defendants did nothing wrong.

Anonymous said...

This case goes Jury. And chief will charm em his way. Get names, call em at home...slam-dunk.

Anonymous said...

Who youe going to believe-the chief-or your lyin eyes.

Anonymous said...

hahaha I Like to piss you people off here who think chief C does any wrong callin people at home when he has a mind to. free country. No way Chiefs gonna call em cause the chief don't need to. Piss you all off thinkin bought it? Gooood. Chief has civil rigths to talk to people. chiefs gonna talk to jury-charm em- -slam-dunk-slam dunk.

Anonymous said...

"Harold never wanted to do anything else than to be able to supply water to the people he served. It was the State that put pressure on him to expand his water network. Why, because the State DES wants to mandate all towns be interconnected with water supply."

If Harold is such an honorable man, why does he refuse to speak to us? He was given two choice opportunities, one made at his own request. Why did he wait until the last moment to back out of both?

And why did Harold lie to the PUC about these meetings? And why was the DES not present at PUC hearing so that they could be cross examined? The DES, PUC and HAWC have been anything but above board on this whole process.

Peter Lewis may have wanted to supply water to the homes he built. But, he wanted it to be a profitable enterprise. That is why Lewis Builders always retained the water rights to every property they sold. That is not altruism, that's business. Harold, and his wife who actually owns 100% of HAWC, are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it out of goodness to their bank accounts.

"Your selectmen want you to pay for water."

Gee, I never heard them say that. No matter. The majority of the current board may feel that way. If Bill Bennett is elected, this will most certainly not be the case.

BTW - You cannot be forced to hook up if you have a working well. Only after HAWC dries it up and it becomes a safety issue that you can be forced.

Anonymous said...

"All of these things aren't "alleged" they really happened, most of them on tape!"

You missed the point. Some/all of these things happened. I even saw some.

However, now that it is before the courts, these incidents, in the eyes of the court, are alleged until the court deems they are not. The plaintiffs have some powerful evidence. At this point it does not matter. It does not matter what we think. The plaintiffs filed a law suit and until the court decides the suit has merit, and makes its decision based on evidence and testimony, it is all alleged.

This moderators of this blog have gone to great lengths to publicize their grievances in a forum they control. And, they keep doing it, over and over. Maybe its just me, but I have to wonder why we keep seeing this broken record.

Anonymous said...

My opinion of these lawsuits is they are brought upon by people who are seeking attention. you wanted an opinion im giving you one. Things are exaggerated here like frank "Yelling" well i dint see any yelling. Oh right that was off camera, whatever Mr. Brownfield was only taking pictures to get a reaction and im sure the jury will see that. as far as the chief, I feel he does handle things in a "old School" way. Im all for him retiring, but I do also acknowledge the good things he has brought to Atkinson. I would like to see a full time qualified chief of police. But i agree with the poster who said it doesn't matter what we think its in the courts hands. But if I were sitting on the jury I would be sure to look at both sides and all situations involved. Which im sure that will be the case. and these lawsuits will probably be thrown out...Just my opinion of course....

Anonymous said...

sure they will like all the other lawsuits about the chiefs actions have been thrown out, right?


Oh yeah, NONE of them have been thrown out, and they ALL cost us money.

Anonymous said...

Was reading the new lawsuit where it gives TAB evidence. Guess Mr. Peak was just seeking attention too, huh? Guess he got it. He had to move out of town. How come the town had us voters pay him all that money. I want an explanation. Not one of your idiot stupid statements. The man had to move. Go ahead. I want an answer. You got any balls. Lets see if you do.

a) In 1981, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against Chief Consentino by then-Atkinson resident Wayne Peak, alleging that the Chief had engaged in a plan to discredit, disgrace, and coerce Mr. Peak by repeatedly charging him with baseless motor vehicle and criminal complaints, resulting in Mr. Peak being forced to move out of state to avoid Chief Consentino’s harassment. The harassment began after Mr. Peak filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Chief Consentino to account for monies collected by the Police Department. Upon information and belief, this lawsuit resulted in a significant monetary settlement in Mr. Peak’s favor. Despite that, the Town of Atkinson did nothing to change or eliminate Chief Consentino’s propensity for retaliating against political opponents or abusing his power as police chief.

Anonymous said...

"You got any balls. Lets see if you do."

So if a woman wishes to respond, she can't then?

Anonymous said...

Hey women can have "balls" too, my wife has more than any of the weenies running the town.

Anonymous said...

Hiding behind a woman's skirts won't protect you. Answer for Mr. Peak.

Anonymous said...

My mistake ..sorry people...I added fuel to the fire once again...I think
my opinion doesn't really matter..Its just responding to a leading question so this blog can ramble once again...sorry I will try hard not to give a sane answer next time....:)

Anonymous said...

First sane thing I've read.