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, May 13, 2009

Heard Around Town: Chief is trying to resurrect the Tower!

Yes, folks it is true. The reporter has heard form a number of citizens and officials in town that Phil is quietly trying to resurrect the tower issue. Now remember, it was only because of those meddling residents up on Hog Hill that he didn't get to use the communications equipment he got on a federal grant, in conjunction with Plaistow, in 2004, on the Hog Hill Tower. The LAW, and the Lawsuit settlement(part of which was negotiated during his tenure as selectman) BE DAMNED! Phil wants it, and by God, he is going to get what he wants. Now that he has intimidated Brian Kaye into leaving Town, and he has apparently intimidated Mark Acciard into leaving too, who is going to question him this time? After all This is a Life safety issue according to Jack Sapia!

Well, it appears that our new selectman, Bill Bennet has been quietly pressuring the new "technology" committee to look into the "communications problem" in town. AND he wants BILL BALDWIN PUT ON THAT COMMITTEE! No conflict there, right? And let's be honest, even if it WERE a conflict, Dick SMith, and the wonderful dedicated citizens on our conflict of interest committee, WOULD NEVER FIND THE CONFLICT ANYWAYS! The only conflicts they ever find is with people like Barbara Stewart for signing a stack of payroll vouchers which happened to contain her brother-in-laws. But when Phil singed one giving himself union benefits, WELL, THAT's OK! Another useless committee that lacks the cajones to do their job!

Now, can anyone tell me what qualifications Mr. Baldwin has to be on the "technology committee"? Does he have an IT degree? No, He has NO Degree! Does he have a technology work history, where he might have gained insider knowledge? Nope, he is a cop. The extent of his technological exposure at work, is surfing the net(including this blog, much of the time, we are told), and pushing the transmit button on his radio. Could Mr. Bennett's insistance on Baldwin's participation on this committee, have to do with his totally partisan viewpoint that Atkinson's "communications crisis" can only be solved with a 180' phallic symbol in the center of town? Hmmm, we have heard of overcompensating, but this is ridiculous!

Keep your eyes and ears peeled people, something is rotten in town hall. And WHERE ARE THE DAMN MINUTES ANYWAYS?


Anonymous said...

Should Baldwin be appointed to the Technology Committee, he would have to recuse himself from voting on anything related to the PD or it would be a conflict of interest. I suggest that people start attending their meetings if this board is going to become just another political machine. What a shame.

Anonymous said...

Why is ti that every time something is being done wrong by our town government, it involves the chief?

Anonymous said...

If they just switch from the new digital communications to the "old" analog FM mode I wonder how much of the crisis will go away?? Police in several towns that I have spoken with all say that as soon as they switched to digital the range of their radios was seriously reduced. This is because in digital systems if you lose just a little data due to noise/static/whatever then the whole conversation just disappears, in analog FM mode the reception gradually degrades but does not just stop.

If Atkinson's equipment is the same motorola stuff Plaistow and others bought, it is capable of BOTH digital and FM modes, but they probably just use it in digital because its newer and cooler.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you hear a few rumors, add a few embellishments, stick in a red herring or two, slant it with a little personal bias, and presto, you've attempted to establish there is a conspiracy afoot and citizens should rise up and storm town hall.

What a bunch of crap, and again demonstrates the level to which the blog owner will stoop to justify his lawsuit.

Face it people. This blog is not the voice of the people. It is the voice of a disgruntled old man with windmills to fight.

Anonymous said...

I suppose this is easy to find out if it is rumor, or fact, just ask one of the technology committee people. Or ask Bennett.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Who is the "disgruntled old man trying to win his lawsuit" that you think owns this blog?

Anonymous said...

Nice Don Quxiote old man titling at windmills...I thought "ad hominium" personal attacks "would not be tolerated or published"...this blog has turned into nothing but the anti-phil / anti-bill baldwin / anti- police / anti - anything that doesn't match up with the blog owner's thoughts and ideas.

Anonymous said...

As Tony Sopranos mother would say, "POOR YOU!" If you can't take the heat then get outta your schemes.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that every time someone points out something about Chief or Billy, that they happen to be doing, it is an "attack"? But it is ok, when Billy stand up in deliberative session, in full uniform sidearm and all( I though it was illegal to bring a gun into a legislative meeting?)and YELL into the microphone about how he needs this tower or he will not be able to do his job, YOU, and YOU and YOU!

Or when Phil yells at his critics in public meetings, demanding they GET THIER FACTS STRAIGHT! When their facts ARE straight, they just don't conform with his lies.

Anonymous said...

Someone should do an article pointing out all the things Phil has done that spawned all of these lawsuits. And if you believe that it is just a few malcontents, then you haven't read the court documents on the Taxpayer website. He has been bullying people for thirty years!

If he is not a bully, and no one needs to fear retaliation from him, then why do we all post anonymously here?

Anonymous said...

Of course, the greatest irony here is that Atkinson police are actually NEVER seen in these so-called "deadspots"; if you live north of Rte 111 you pay the same taxes as anyone else in town but your neighborhood doesn't ever get patrolled; God help us if anyone tries to break in.

Atkinson PD has about 15 vehicles, but apparently none of them have the range to make it the 2 miles to those neighborhoods...

Anonymous said...

"I suppose this is easy to find out if it is rumor, or fact, just ask one of the technology committee people. Or ask Bennett."

But that would "too" easy. If Mr. Blog Owner did that then he could not post his hysterical rants. He'd have to publish the truth rather make up all this stuff and expect us to accept it as truth. It's much more fun to create a story, douse it in gasoline, and throw in a match by posting it.

May 13, 2009 11:19 PM got it exactly right. This blog has turned into a forum for one man to post attacks, whether they have any basis in truth or not.

This is a great place to come for its entertainment value, but it all it is good for. If you want the real story, don't come looking here for it.

The BOS members have their phone numbers published. Got a question, call them. Or you can send EMAIL it to Barbara Snicer at and she'll forward it to the BOS.

Go to the source for your facts, not this rag.

Anonymous said...

Ah...after a 2 week hiatus, it is nice to see things have returned to normal. :-)

Anonymous said...

It's why the National Enquirer does so well. Little difference between it and this farce.

Anonymous said...

Didn't any of you all see last week's Selectmen's Meeting, when Lt. Baldwin and the Selectmen discussed bringing the tower issue back? And all the Selectmen were in agreement with the Lt.'s request?

Mr. Bennett said he would like to see the technology group involved. The Lt. submitted of list of potential committee members, most of whom apparently served on the last one. The Lt. was on that committee as well.

So. Here we go again. Gives us something to think about this summer.

namekit said...

Until the town publishes the police log like all of the surrounding towns, I will not support any tower, new officers, cars etc.. I drive by the police station all times of the day / night and there is never anything happening..I am sick of hearing that Atkinson is not the sleepy little town I think it is..Until I see different it is..

Anonymous said...

more denials, but no facts to support them.

you accuse us on this blog of spin and lies, but all of this was discussed at the meeting, and people i know around town, who are in positions to know are pissed at the selectmen meddling.

Anonymous said...

One person comes to this blog and continually rips it.

Just one problem; they never address the fact that there are a small group of people that control too much in this town, and they use the restriction of information to perpetuate that control. Let's call this person "Mr. Critic"!

Now, there's no doubt that "Mr. Critic" is one of the people that this blog has exposed, or somehow lost power, money, or prestige when the Atkinson Mafia was exposed.

Let's see if Mr. Critic actually has something to say besides attacks (of course he will, because he/she is all about constructive/reasonable conversation, or so they claim).

Mr. Critic, will you be willing to answer a few questions?

1) What is your opinion on the Hampstead Water Company water withdrawal Mr. Critic? Do you support it, or are you against it?

2) Are you a supporter of the Chief Mr. Critic, or do you think he should step down?

Just 2 questions Mr. Critic. Do you have the guts to answer them?

Anonymous said...

How about one more;

Mr. Critic, would you agree that using your official position to "go after" your critics is wrong?

Anonymous said...

"One person comes to this blog and continually rips it."

How do you know it is only one person?

Mr. Moderator is well practiced at "ripping" others. You can dish it out but can't take it?

Anonymous said...

has the moderator said anything not true?

Anonymous said...

"Now, there's no doubt that "Mr. Critic" is one of the people that this blog has exposed, or somehow lost power, money, or prestige when the Atkinson Mafia was exposed.'

Absolutely not true. The only thing this Mr. Critic has lost is any faith that this blog if the voice of the people.

And while were all asking questions, answer me this Mr. Blog Owner. Why should anyone have to pass your "Litmus Test" May 14, 2009 10:49 PM? What does it matter what I or anyone else feels about these issues? Are the proper answers a requirement to voice one's opinion here?

Anonymous said...

When a blog article starts with the words "Heard Around Town", pretty much anything after that is going to lack credibility. It would have been funnier if the poster followed it with "now I'm not one to talk, but".

Now I'm not one to talk, but I heard if you want the truth, you should go to the BOS meetings and other committee meetings and find our for yourself. People: get out from behind your computers and get involved or forever live in the world of speculation based on rumor and spin. If you don't get involved, its like complaining about election results when you didn't even vote.

Atkinson Reporter said...

To answer the recently posted questions;


Anyone can post. Hopefully they have something valuable to contribute to the conversation.

This site is meant to be an online conversation about events affecting the Town of Atkinson, including Timberlane School District.

No one has ever been banned for expressing an unpopular opinion from this site.

The Atkinson Reporter would LOVE to have Frank, Jack, Phil, and anyone else post here under their own names, so that we can have a real debate.

Anonymous said...

"so that we can have a real debate."

As long as you and everyone else chooses to remain anonymous you know damn well Frank, Jack, Phil, etc. are not going to come here to debate anyone about anything.

I don't like them, and it is clear virtually everyone who posts here don't either. It is very clear the Moderator really has it in for them. They'd have to be suffering dementia to enter this mess.

You want to debate them? Do what May 15, 2009 12:54 PM
suggests, GO TO THE MEETINGs. Get involved. Join a committee. Do something constructive rather than bitch an moan here.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. Critic!

We can't help but notice that you haven't answered the questions!

We're waaaaaaiiiiiiitttttttiiiiiiinnnnngggggg!

Oh, and to answer your question about how I know you're only one person, how about this:

We can tell not only that you're only one person, but also that you or someone you're close to was one of the people exposed on this blog! How do you like that?

Oh, and don't forget, we're waiting for the answers to those questions...

...and the silence is DEAFENING!!!

Anonymous said...

Wow. You really put the screws to "Mr Critic". Now reach around and give yourself a nice pat on the back. I'm sure you'll sleep well tonight with the satisfaction of having done so. So stand a bit taller tonight when you're looking in the mirror and give yourself a nice approving nod!

Anonymous said...

Yet another example why this place is a waste of perfectly good disk space.

"Answer these three questions, I dare you."

No response.

"I double dog dare you."

Heavens to Betsy. How can such a challenge go unanswered?

The poster just adds more proof to my claims. What's next, put my tongue on that frozen flag pole?

What'a putz.

Anonymous said...

Just a little ti bit to liven things up.

Moderator is pissed because he can no longer tie me to a local I.P. address. This would not tell him my identity, but is a way he can keep track of who is making what comments.

Want to really frustrate him? Don't come to this site from your browser. Rather, come in through This hides your identity and suddenly, everyone looks the same to him.

Do not believe for a minute, my fellow bloggers, this person has your interests at heart. He cares only about HIS agenda. He's a spiteful little man who believes the powers to be have done him wrong. He has no life other than what he can suck from you to further his claims.

A shame really. When the original blog started it had such promise and I believed. Now, the only way I can describe it is, "A Joke."

Sorta like a washed up lounge singer who used to headline in Vegas. Sad to watch.

Anonymous said...

Mr/Mrs Critic,

I think the poster asked you several questions because, while you continually critique this blog, nearly everyone here comes here because:
1. We believe that our "nice town" had a police chief that had veered out of control in his pursuit of power and was not beyond the abuse of his office in chasing down his critics using silly and vindictive means
2. We saw repeated instances where our town government simply ignored the will of the people when we demanded something they didn't agree with (i.e. Vietnam Memorial)
3. We believe certain people (I.e. Harold Morse) have too much influence in the running of local politics here

I think they just want to know; do you stand with us on these most basic of issues? Or do you just come here to discredit the blog because you support the chief and the town as it is now?

Anonymous said...

Why should Mr./Mrs. Critic need to answer any questions at all? What relevance would any answers have on the points he/she is trying to make?

If Mr./Mrs. Critic needs to answer those questions, then everyone here should be required to answer them before posting anything, criticism or not.

But, you heard the moderator say, "There ARE NO LITMUS TESTS HERE!"

Anonymous said...

No one else answers those question here because it's obvious that everyone else here is sick of the abuse of power in this town.

The reason you (Mr. Critic, or an associate thereof) is afraid to answer the 3 important questions is that you know that when you make clear to everyone that you support the chief, support Harold Morse and the Hampstead Water well withdrawals, and like how the Atkinson mafia control things, you know that you will have no credibility here, and that your posts are simply meant to disrupt this blog.

Could you please answer the questions?

Anonymous said...

To 5:03,

Look at what happens to the people who go to meetings and ask questions.

What did the BOS do to carol Grant?

They called the police to evict her, her wheelchair bound son and husband from town hall!



Look at what happened to Acciard.

He got involved. All he did was complain because the chief was voting on his own requests. A no brainer, and look at what has happened to him.

So you think we who are afraid to put our names to what we post here because we dont want our local gestapo chief to target us, you think we should go to meetings and get involved?


So that our cars and homes can get vandalized too?

Anonymous said...

So 8:45,

WHO is this sad little man who is Moderator?

Anonymous said...

*note: The previous post was made possible by the Atkinson Mafia and Supporters of Sapia International

Anonymous said...

This persistence that Mr./Mrs. Critic answer a set of questions continues to demonstrate the bias and ineffectiveness of this forum.

You say these questions need to be answered to establish credibility. What if Mr./Mrs. Critic gave you the answers you are looking for? Would you then accept the criticisms as valid? I think not. The questions are just a red herring to divert attention.

This forum has been reduced to reprinting newspaper articles. Nothing really new is exposed here. The same old complaints are heard over and over again ad nauseam.

Oh, and this is a good one;"What did the BOS do to carol Grant?

They called the police to evict her, her wheelchair bound son and husband from town hall!"

How many years ago was that? I believe the BOS member who caused that stir is no longer on the board and the case was resolved in court. Is that the best you can do?

Phil and Jack are no longer on the board. Jack is making noise but the current BOS seems to be just ignoring him. Isn't that a good thing? Frank is still around because he keeps running unopposed. Don't want him around? Put up a viable candidate to run against him. Duh.

You scream for change, but committee openings remain open.

Let's change subjects for a moment. Last years BOS race was very close. This Blog backed Valerie Tobin and if it had not been for a spoiler candidate, she might have won. Even then, she lost by a very narrow margin.

Fast forward to this years election. Valerie disappeared. Nothing, nada from her. Then because Leon dropped out, she ran as a write in, with this Blogs full endorsement. Look how well that worked out. She got creamed. Yep, the blog really pulled that one off.

So, yes, I and others are very critical of this blog. Not because we've been hurt by it or been a target, and not because, as I sure someone will claim, a member of the "A" mafia. I can state for a fact my name has not once been mentioned here. Not even hinted at.

My criticisms are based on the blog owners entries. Rather than an editor of a newspaper, he's made this place his bully pulpit. You agree with him, you're a saint. You disagree with him the typical response is, "Nice try Frank."

The last election clearly shows it has become an ineffective voice of the people with no ability to influence events. A paper tiger.

Put a fork in this one. Time for someone new, with a more open mind and no axe to grind, to take over.

Why do I stay? Entertainment value only.

Oh, one last thing, the signs. Do you really expect someone driving by at 35mph is going to see them as anything other than a bunch of very crude block letters. Worse, how are most people expected to know it is even a web site? Without a "WWW" in the prefix that most people expect, it is just noise. Jack didn't need to go before the BOS to complain about what they represent. If he'd referred to them as "Trash", he'd have a valid point.

Anymore questions? Duh.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Critic, could you please answer the questions?

Because the ranting long-winded reply just doesn't answer the major questions:

1) Do you support the chief, or do you acknowledge that he's out of control?

2) Do you support Harold Morse and the Hampstead Water withdrawal?

3) Do you think business as usual is OK in Atkinson?

Until you answer otherwise, we'll assume that the one critic here
>Supports the chief
>Supports Hampstead Water
>Thinks the status quo in Atkinson is OK

Anonymous said...

Again, this last post goes to prove my point. Rather that weight the evidence of my augment, you persist in this petty request?

Again, I ask, what difference does it make what my answers would be?

I'll say it, yet again. Do the correct answers confirm the points I'm trying to make, or are you trying determine whether I share your narrow opinions, but view this in a different perspective.

For the last time. The questions are meaningless. More important, so would the answers. Again, I ask the question. What if I gave you the answers that would make you happy? Would this appease you and give you reason to think I agree with you? Would you then agree with me?

No. By asking these same questions over and over again, you are setting the criteria by which my points should be taken seriously or not.

If you continue with this petty exercise then you entirely miss the point and there is no hope in changing the direction of this discussion.

I've said it before, and I will say it for one last time. I could very well give you the answers you want, and maybe agree with. What does it matter? Unless your are the sole judge and jury of what presents itself as the truth on this blog, my arguments speak for themselves.

This has been entertaining. But, unless a new counter to my position presents itself, goodbye. It is precisely this type of behavior of my nemesis here that continues to prove my point. The blog is old news, a washed up former of its previous self, and just as important, not.

Ok, ask the questions yet again. I assure you, you will continue to be just as frustrated. Get it through your thick small minded head. The questions and answers have absolutely no relevance to whether this blog is an effective means to inform the public.

The evidence has clearly shown the public has washed its hands of The postings are reprints of newspaper article. The responses meaningless.

Time to shut it down boys. Find a new hobby. Photography maybe.

Anonymous said...

The shots at the Conflict of Interest Committee were unfounded and out-of-line.

- By town law, it cannot act on an issue unless a citizen submits a petition. No petition--no action.

- It is currently short one member because of a lack of someone running for the open slot--and all calls for applicants to fill the vacancy until next year, have gone unanswered.

- With one probable exception, no current member of the Conflict of Interest Committee was on the Committee when the cases you mentioned occurred. So you judgements were unfair, and unfounded, and cheap shots.

- Since someone will surely complain about recent actions, you had better have been there--or I'm sure your judgements will be based on hearsay, or worse, because you weren't there--and can't judge. If you were there, you must recognize that the Committe only acted in accordance with Committee Ordinance, and RSAs. The Committee cannot act any other way--and no one would want it to. The Committee has to put everything else aside.

- If you REALLY want to help the Conflict of Interest Committee, apply for the vacant position, and really contribute to making the town better; in stead of just bitching on your blog for your own self-interest and self-satisfaction.

For all those that complain about the town and try to find a conspiratorial slant to everything any past, present, or future town officical does: Do any of you have the "cajones," as you say, to act, rather than just complain, and apply to fill the Conflict of Interest vacancy, and really make a difference?

Put up or shut up!

MAcciard said...

You are right in one respect, Although I fully understand why people do not put their names to their writing here, there will be no change unless they run for office, and come out to deliberative session. That is simply the fact.

What I find hard to understand is the petition signers of last year, they did the hard part... They put their names on paper for all, including the chief to see. We saw the result, his intimidating phone calls to get people to remove their names, resulting in ANOTHER lawsuit. But why not follow up by going to deliberative session to back up your petition? As I said, putting yourself out there was the hard part, showing up to vote whether you speak or not is easy after that.

As for the conflict of interest committee;

There is one excellent reason they are ineffectual, look at their track record;

In 2004, they find Barbara Stewart committed the "Most Serious" violation of the code ever, according to Mr. Smith, chair.

What did she do? sign the monthly payroll list, on that list was Teddy's pay. Was his pay special, or extraordinary? nope just his normal stipend that he get every month.

Fast Forward 3 months, I file a complaint because Chief voted, as a selectman, to approve his own request as police chief to take money out of the donation account.

Mr. Smith says to me, "but it is the chief" incredulously. They find no violation, and it takes a court to tell them they were wrong.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Norris, both long time friends of the chief, and Mr. Murad, former officer who worked for the chief all should have recused themselves if they were to honor the code they were supposed to uphold, but they did not.

Fast forward 8 months later, I filed a complaint because the chief, as a selectman, paid himself and EXTRA $1,300.00 "union benefit", when the contract excluded him from receiving any union benefits.

Mr. Smith said again no violation.

The conflict of interest committee has an established track record of being a political toll, rather than doing their job.

They earned every bit of criticism they have received.

But what you miss, is this blog, as the moderator has said many times, is a conversation. So it is not the blogs fault if the people who speak here do not translate the conversation into action. It is much harder to act out your principles, than to speak of them.

Anonymous said...


The Conflict of Interest Committee is composed of concerned citizens that took the time to either file to run, or were elected by write-in, all democratic.

To say, "The conflict of interest committee has an established track record of being a political toll, rather than doing their job." is judgemental and an insult to those who were not on the committee for the decisions you describe. Others might, and do, interpret its record differently, as is their right, and yours. But to say that a freely elected committee of concerned citizens, at is open to the public, is a "political toll," and to suggest that its members are not capable of listening to evidence and making decisions based on the facts of each case smacks of McCarthy'ism. I would expect better of you, and anyone else for that matter. One can say there are patterns to decisions of the Budget Committee, on which you served. So what does it prove? You were present at few of the Conflict of Interest Committee meetings in the last six years. To pass judgement on other events that you did not personally witness, is something you accuse others of. Isn't this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black?" How can you and the conspiracists judge others--without them expecting to judge you? Especially when you were not present and did not know the facts.

Anonymous said...

And one more thing...

This blog is hardly "a conversation," when the moderator cleary has an agenda (look at the slanted poll question on the home page.)

If the moderator were trying to be completely fair they would not flavor the site with their positions. "Editor" might be a better term, because it does not suggest the moderation that is not present in this blog.

Anonymous said...

But Mr/Mrs Critic,

You have used up more electrons posting here than anyone else, so every post you place here just goes to prove that this blog is is fair; how else could you have a voice otherwise?

You have tried to make it look like your posts were deleted, but people saw throught the deception...

You have tried to avoid answering 3 basic questions because they would show that you are just one of the local hacks that seek to benefit from the corruption we seek to expose, but it has become obvious to everyone here that your only reason for coming is to...

...disrupt and attempt to discredit a blog that allows you every post you write.

Even as you avoid answering the questions...

1) Do you support the Chief (of course you do...)
2) Do you support Hampstead Water and Harold Morse (of course you do!)
3) Do you hope to keep power concentrated among the Atkinson Mafia (of course you do, you were defending an ineffectual Ethics Board just a few lines back)!

Mr. Critic, post all you want, even as we scroll past you empty posts to the real work of creating an open government by, for, and in service of the people!

You'll just be someone we ignore in a little bit, but at this point it's just too fun to point out that you can't answer those 3 basic questions, and how clearly that marks you as one of the hacks we've layed low! Thanks!

MAcciard said...

Let me explain what I meant about the Conflict of Interest Committee.

I was trying to explain how anyone could make the original statement that you chose to challenge.

Having served on the budget committee for a number of years I have some insight into this. I don't care if the people serving are "democratically elected". Some committees are elected, some are appointed, neither method changes the responsibility.

On the budget committee, the responsibility is to prepare the budget, and that entails researching the various new proposals to see if we are getting value for money. It also means challenging the dept. heads assumptions to see if operations can be achieved less expensively.

On the conflict of interest committee, they have sworn to uphold an ordinance, that is fairly specific. So, if signing a normal payroll voucher, that happens to include your brother-in-laws normal paycheck is an egregious violation, then signing a specific voucher for yourself, to pay yourself monies that you have never received before, and are not entitled to, is even worse. But that committee did not feel so.

Whenever I am asked about that initial code of ethics complaint, I ask the person;
Can someone who is both selectman, and police chief vote as a selectman, on police matters?

Without exception they have ALL said of course not, but that committee did not see it.

My point in all of this is simple. That conflict of interest committee, the one manned by Dick Smith, Bob Murad, Mike Mascola, Rich O'Leary, and Berg Norris, operated on differing standards of review depending upon who they were investigating.

No matter how they got there, they have a duty to perform. If they can not do it they should leave.

My philosophy is that your duty comes before your own considerations.

Anonymous said...


Rest assured--duty always comes first.

Anonymous said...

I think you should all bring your pitch forks and torches tonight to town hall and then you can tar and feather the BOS! Then later maybe you can roast a witch or two on the town square. It'll be great fun! A call to arms for all conspiracy theorists!!!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Critic, you're so cute, like a neutered mascot!

Anonymous said...

May 19, 2009 1:41 AM

You do realize there is more than critic to this blog, don't you?

However, you seem to be the only one making an ass of himself.