Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

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

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

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Atkinson Crime Statistics!

There has long been a debate about exactly how much crime exists in Atkinson. When it is convenient for there to be little crime, it is often said that we are a sleepy little town where nothing ever happens. When pushing for budget increases we get yelled at during deliberative session by the Lt. telling us that if we knew what he knows about what goes on in Atkinson, we would never control the budget.

So which is the truth?

Well, for the first time in at least a year, the Atkinson Police Web, is posting crime stats for 2009.

Atkinson Police Dept. Crime Stats

So for 1/1/2009- 5/30/09:

There were 634 dispatches; including;

Alarm: 95
Suspicious Person: 40
LITTERING??? 15
Welfare Check: 25

Assist other Agency: 84
Civil Standby: 12
Police Information: 16
VIN Inspection: 16
Paper Service: 21

This represents 22 weeks of police coverage, there are 21 shifts per week.

That makes 462 shifts covered in this report.

634/462 = 1.47 dispatches per shift on average.

Now lets see how this works out in $$$?

$771,000 police budget for the year

divide by: 12 months= $64,250 per month X 5 months of this report= $321,250.

$321,250 divide by 634 dispatches = $506.70 per call.

1.47 calls per shift.

Does anyone know what other towns spend per call, or how many calls per shift they use?

72 comments:

MAcciard said...

I just took a look at those stats, and there are also a few burglaries, domestic disputes, harrassment, etc.

So it is not fair to point out the minor stuff, and not balance with the real stuff too.

By the way; Littering? Police get called for littering?

And what is police info? or civil standby?

But you should also point out the real work as well as the trivial stuff.

As for the costs for neighboring towns, I will look back into my budget books, I may have data for last year or year before.

Anonymous said...

Well, perhaps now we can get a real look at police productivity. Good luck guys. We'll look forward to the real facts Phil hasn't wanted us to know. $506.70 per call is outrageous.

Anonymous said...

What about motor vehicle stops?

What about officers checking our house when we are on vacations?

What about officers checking on the businesses during the overnights?

ALL of those things are what police call, "calls for service". You factor everything that police do plus reports, etc and you will wind up with a lot more than what is being told is number of "dispatches".

Anonymous said...

If we are throwing numbers around, lets consider this:

There are 7 days a week with 3 shifts a day. This equals 21 shifts per week...

If each officer stops 3 cars (which is pretty standard) per shift, that equals 63 stops a week...

Now, multiply 63 x 52 weeks a year and you come out with an average of 3,276 stops for the year.

Any small town cop will tell you that the majority of their time is spent dealing with motor vehicle related complaints (speeding cars in the neighborhoods, etc) and the majority of good police work is self initiated activity.

So, while you may say that there is 1.7 calls going out over the radio, keep in mind that the officers are patrolling and stopping cars and generating cases and arrests from there.

This is what is confounds me, what do you people want? Do you want Atkinson to have as many calls per shift as Nashua, Salem, or Concord? This is a quiet town with a high quality of life, a low crime rate, and a good police force that helps to keep it that way.

In the interest of fairness, why not compare other departments in town and waht they cost everytime they go out.

I bet you the fire department costs a lot more than $500 a call everytime they roll out the front door? How many calls per day are they getting?

How about everytime the Highway Department is called to do something? Or, Animal Control?

You can break down numbers to say almost whatever you want them to say and to go almost whatever way you want them to go.

My stops averages are for only one officer per shift...if more than one officer works...the numbers go up...but stay steady at 3,000 plus stops a year. That's a lot of cars and a lot of work for one guy per shift to be doing.

Keep up the good work PD you have my support!!!

Anonymous said...

Motor vehicle stopr are listed in those 643 calls

Anonymous said...

to 6:23 am:

They most certainly are not. There were motor vehicle related incidents, but actual stops for speeding, running stop signs, no inspection stickers, unregistered vehicles, etc. These are not listed and they do factor in to total calls for service that a police department deals with.

People bitched because there were "no stats"...now that they are out...people are bitching because they are low?

You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

A poster brought up an excellent point. What about other town departments?

The fire department in particular. The town is double paying for a similar service. The town contracts out ambulance service to Trinity...yet when a medical call goes out the AFD roll with their Rescue Truck...so the town pays the two FF / EMTs on board...and they pay the other AFD members who show up at the station AFTER the the truck leaves and sign their time cards...and then have to pay Trinity on top of that. Does all this cost more than $500 dollars a call? Yes it does...but hey...this is the "We hate the cops" blog and we'll find any reason to raze what they do to the ground and salt the earth after them so nothing can grow.

Be fair and get off your high horses about fiscal and fiduciary responsibility and thriftiness.

Anonymous said...

Again, why don't you just rename this blog: I hate the Chief and everything he is associated with?

I'd bet you would love to do an expose on Elderly Affairs too! But you can't now, can you...

Anonymous said...

you cant compare fire to police. would you want to not have the trucks when there is a fire?

different situation.

police you can compare between towns because the job is similar and is affected by similar things like amount of business, size of town, number of homes, income level, etc.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson should contract police services with a neighboring town such as Plaistow. There is not enough police activity to justify the management expense. Partnering with another town would probably cut our costs in half with no discernible loss in police coverage. We do this with our high school, why not police?

Anonymous said...

LESS THAN 1 AND A HALF CALLS PER SHIFT?????

And THIS COSTS $800,000????

Anonymous said...

Security isn't cheap.
Do you really want a crime rate to be higher so the cost per call is lower? The crime rate would certainly be higher if the scumbaggioes from over the border thought they had near zero chance of getting caught because there was only one or no patrols on any given night.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson Reporter made a statement that there were 634 "dispatches" for the five month period between 1/1/2009 and 5/30/2009. I know you faithful readers may find this hard to believe...but Atkinson Reporter got it wrong!

This number seemed low to me, so I took it upon myself to do something that Atkinson Reporter should have done...I asked for an answer to A. clarify the situation; and B. actually take the time to get the other side of the story and "get my facts straight!"

The officer I spoke with did not want to publicly give his; but I flagged him down yesterday while he was patrolling through my neighborhood. He was more than happy to answer my questions regarding what was haphazardly posted on this blog "ex parte"

It breaks down like this: First, if you read the crime stats log it clearly states that there "634 records printed". Nowhere does it say 634 "dispatches"

Second, 634 records printed means that those were instances where an actual physical report was typed out and drew a case number.

Third, it therefore means that there are just 1.47 CALLS per shift...it means that an officer is writting 1.47 REPORTS per shift.

This does not include numbers for car stops, speeders, etc.

Fourth, the author of this incendiary post makes it sound as if these are year end numbers. They are not. If you average out the numbers for an entire year that 634 breaks down to an average of 126 actual physical reports taken and written per month for a grand total of 1,522 reports with case numbers for the entire year.

The best part, is that you can request copies of those reports and read them yourselves. Afterall it is your Right To Know.

So you take my 1,500 average reports and add that to 3,000 car stop average another intelligent poster put out there, you have approximately 4,500 cases of actual documented police activity.

We need to be fair!

And since when is the PD budget $800,000? It goes up everytime on this blog...tomorrow it will be 1 million...

Please print a retraction, Moderator...it was not 634 "dispatches"...it is 634 "records"...meaning that there was enough there for when the officer went to the call that after he left, that officer would now have to write a report.

You were wrong. Be the better person and admit it!

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote that Mr. Brownfield should move out of town. That is no joke. That is serious. I hear Mr. Acciard had it keyed into his car and painted on his home. I hear he moved. Mr. Kaye was told to move and received death threats. Mr. Peak was told to move too from what I read.

What is going on in my town? The state police should be brought in immediately.

Anonymous said...

Amazing all the whiners here that defend everything the chief does; now we can't debate police matters either? Go to hell!

Consider that the local police work doesn't include regular patrolling (sadly missing in most parts of town) or deal with how many calls were ignored. Also, remember our crack chief wasn't even aware when there was a kidnapping attempt occured last year. This is what we get thanks to the gutless zombies that support everything chiefy does.

One question to the zombies: how do you respond to the fact the we have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawsuit judgements handed down by NH judges? Or the police officers that have sued the chief for dishonesty?

Are they in on the conspiracy too?

Anonymous said...

All trinity does is transport, they dont do rescue.

This is how it has always been, in most every town. Plaistow has a HUGE rescue truck, and trinity still does the transport.

they are doing two different jobs.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that whenever you question, merely question, anything to do with our police dept; budget, manpower, use of manpower, the chiefs abuses of authority, you are slammed as "hating the cops"?

This dept. is paid for by our taxes and we have a right to question these things just like we do with every other one.

Fact is Atkinson's PD has always run inefficiently. Other dept.s in the area marvel at what our chief "get's away with" By the way, that is a direct quote form a nearby chief of police that I used to work for.

Anonymous said...

LITTERING??? You have got to be kidding right?

Anonymous said...

Enforcing littering laws is very important. Someone put a Dunkin Donuts cup on my lawn and I want it investigated.

Burglaries abound and I am vulnerable, nothing can be done about that. Will more money help? Another hundred thousand or do you need more?

"Security isn't cheap."

Anonymous said...

We've had Irish travelers that have gone through town, there are car robberies going on now, but patrolling away from Main St. and Academy Ave. is non-existent. Why?

Because our chief has set up a system whereby anyone that challenges him or even suggests something is classified as an "enemy"; the vast majority of selectmen have let him get away with it, with the exception of a brave few.

The only missing piece to correcting things is getting enough people to investigate the chief for themselves, get sick of watching what goes on regularly, and then get involved in fixing things, even at the cost of harassment.

The pro-chief zombies that roam this blog don't help, but they're essentially embarassing themselves by merely criticizing this blog; they know their hero is indefensible, and they don't even bother. They just continually condemn the good citizens that take the time here to get educated on the foolishness around town.

Anonymous said...

SHOOT THE MESSENGER, IGNORE THE MESSAGE!

Tried and True Atkinson Official Policy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:02,

You can try as much as you like to paint those who criticize the blog as pro-chief, but you are simply wrong.

Many of the critics, myself included, are pointing out that this blog devotes too much time discussing the chief and the departments he is associated with. Whether or not you wish to admit it, it does give the appearance that there is a group here with an axe to grind.

If you do not believe me fine. Just remember that Manchester Union Leader published an editorial several months ago question whether Chief Consentino was a bully or a TARGET.

Now where could they ever get THAT perception? And since some of you are so fond of dispassionate facts, how about crunching numbers on the percentage of Chief related topics vs. anything else in town?

Remember, there are only one or a handful of individuals controlling the content (i.e. what is actually published as a topic) on this blog. So I think you would be hard pressed to say this is a blog that discusses all things Atkinson. It is more likely a blog that discusses all things in Atkinson that annoy whoever controls the Atkinson Reporter.

It will be interesting if,in discovery phase of the lawsuit, it is revealed who actually is running the blog. Seeing as Artus and Brownfield deny they are behind it, if it turns out to be them, can you trust anything they say anymore? Mark Acciard has claimed he was not associated with the blog many times, but his own profile listed him as a team member on the Atkinson Reporter II. And when this was pointed out, he quickly had it removed. And despite several attempts to have Mark explain this, he remained curiously quiet. Why?

For someone who makes it a point of saying he posts under his own name as he has nothing to hide, why does he not come clean? What else is there to hide?

Anonymous said...

What other dept. in town has half the controversy that chief does?

Anonymous said...

Why does it matter who runs this dog and pony show?

Are the facts presented wrong? Or do you only have a problem with the comments, if thats the case, do you have a problem with the union leaders comments too, and what about the eagle tribunes comments? And how about our pompous police chiefs comments that have cost us so much friggin money in lawyers fees? Do you have a problem with those comments too?

Anonymous said...

9:36,

You completely missed my point. There are not facts here. Was the topic about Lt. Baldwin a fact? And I am not referring to comments on the topics, I am referring to the amount of topics pertaining to the Chief vs. anything else happening in town.

And my main point was that it is a small, handful of people who CONTROL what is posted here. And what if it is revealed that same handful of people are some of the same group suing the town? How fair and balanced is the blog that discusses all things Atkinson?

We just had a topic on the breakdown on hours on the police budget (posted twice, I might add) and now we get the crime statistics post. What's next the Phil Consentino boxers or briefs discussion?

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

NO, not necessary. Everyone knows he has big balls and not licensed to carry a big weapon.

Anonymous said...

You guys keep harping on that one article. There have been what 100 articles on this thing? And that one the mod said was hearsay. and when they pulled it they said they heard there was a letter, again hearsay, nobody has seen it. Wasnt presented as facts. Was clearly stated what it was.

Anonymous said...

I see. So help me to understand this; the article that was posted could certainly be considered slander. They apologized for posting the article thus, this is an admission of guilt (Hmmm...does this sound familiar?) And we should just overlook it?!

Funny the double standard, eh?

Anonymous said...

To the person that previously posted (the chief groupie):

All you do is point to the few flaws of this blog;

> You don't have the guts to defend the chief because you'd instantly become a laughing stock

> You're afraid to declare what you actually think because then you'd lose complete credibility

All you do is carp about the imperfections of this blog. It is necessitated by the wreckless actions of a chief out of control, which is thanks to people like you that have your head so far up his a** that they couldn't recognize reality if a spotlight was put on it in the dark.

Crawl back under your rock and post where people want to read your meaningless drivel; we know the blog is imperfect, but we need it as long as zombies like yourself allow the chief to run wild...

Anonymous said...

But again, you condemn this blog for one article out of hundreds, and thousands of comments.

But you defend these idiots who keep costing us thousands in legal fees. You condemn the people who get sick of the crap and file these suits, but you are ok, with the actions that caused these suits.

Anonymous said...

Look, this is what you continually fail to understand: we are not "Chief supporters." I realize that trying to frame it in that light, it is easier to tear down someone that way. However, you fail to get the message!

You say: "It is necessitated by the wreckless actions of a chief out of control, which is thanks to people like you that have your head so far up his a** that they couldn't recognize reality if a spotlight was put on it in the dark."

People like me?! You do not know me or my opinions on the chief. So how can you possibly presume to know what I think?

But when you say "...It is necessitated by the wreckless actions of a chief out of control," I thank you very much for making my point.

And by the way, nice dodge on my pointing out the double standard. I've noticed that when a blog "critic" makes a point, the typical response is not to continue the dialogue (that is too difficult.) It is to shoot the messenger (an expression that many here seem so fond of) and call them names.

So I'll ask the question: why not just do away with the pretense that this blog is about all things Atkinson and give it the name you really want: I HATE PHIL.

Anonymous said...

The BLOG doesn't hate anybody. The BLOG is nothing more than a bulletin board where people post sticky notes. I dont see any moderation turned on, so anybody can post anything. So if you think the conversation is one sided, give your side.

Anonymous said...

That's been tried and instead of discussion, we get responses such as: "Crawl back under your rock and post where people want to read your meaningless drivel; we know the blog is imperfect, but we need it as long as zombies like yourself allow the chief to run wild..."

And you are fooling yourself if you think this is not one-sided. Please consider that a small group of people control what topics are posted here. What YouTube videos are posted on the sidebar. What polls (if you want to call them that) are posted. And if anyone should post an alternative viewpoint to the anti-town/chief sentiment, they are shouted down.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

That is what freedom of speech is about. You say what you want and others say what they want. Sometimes their response is not on the same intellectual plane as yours. So be it!

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:36,

The comments are the comments, and I understand that. The REAL problem is the way the content is controlled.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Funny,seems to me the most glaring issue here is that all you critics do is try to point out flaws of this blog.

It's run by volunteers doing their civic duty to be involved in their community. They don't have paid reporters to run around and verify every fact that gets published, and when they've made a mistake they quickly address it.

Now, let's look at you critics; you whine about aspects of the blog, but your criticism is one-note and empty. You haven't the guts to actually dare to defend the chief because you'd be revealed a the lackeys that you are. You just bitch-bitch-bitch about the blog.

Save it. We don't care what you think. Start your blog (Butt-Kissers Review) so we can ignore it.

Anonymous said...

To the posters upset at the Atkison Reporter blog. Your incessant whining is just that. You fail to deal with the facts and reality so go someplace else. I could care less who runs the blog. Irrelevant. Critics of government are needed like it or not. You're obviously pro-government, pro-spending, pro-abuse-the-taxpayers.

If you don't like it here, leave.
Go create your own blog. What are you waiting for? Why don't you do your own?

Anonymous said...

Funny....

There's a link to Animal Control on the PD site under Public Safety and the page says that Animal Control is not part of the PD!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:04 PM,

Funny how a little criticism of this blog can get your panties in a bunch. So we are pro-spending, pro-abuse the taxpayers, and pro-government. I guess that means you are not those things, correct? In other words you are a CNHT supporter.

Fellow readers, I submit to you the following links about CNHT and their questionable tactics:

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/1244

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/1341

CNHT is a far, far right organization and they have a history of "consulting" with local taxpayer coalitions (like our Atkinson Taxpayers Association) and helping local residents sue their towns. So while CNHT can claim they never sue anyone, you can be pretty sure they are involved in some way, shape, or form.

Here's a small glimpse of Ed's hate speech expressing his desire to see President Obama fail:

"I want Obama to fail at every turn in his socialist, gun-grabbing, transfer of wealth scheme, class warfare, racist, liberal/progressive/pencil-necked Ivy League nit wit plan for America."

CNHT does a nice job dividing towns and thanks to the Leon Artus', Gary Brownfield, Mark Acciards, and Steve Lewis' of the world, their brand of hate is alive and well right here in Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

I'm a big Obama supporter and I must tell you, your attempt to try to split this blog over politics is weak and won't work.

We are united, no matter what party we belong to, against people like you; people willing to stand by and benefit from a small group of peoe abusing their power.

Let's show idiots like this how it's done; we need more original reporting here on local issues; let's stop allowing us to get distracted by this anti-blog bullshit...

Anonymous said...

The moderator decided to highlight Atkinson police log items, like: Littering, well-being checks, and alarms. The moderator didn’t highlight burglaries, shots fired complaints, motor vehicle accidents, deaths, unwanted persons, drunks and etc.

Here’s an idea that will save the town some pennies: the next time someone dumps a truck full of old roofing tiles or asbestos tiles on your property, or dumps a house full of trash in your dumpster, do the town a favor and don't call the police, call the company it's going to cost you to remove it, after all it's only "littering".

Oh, the next time you request a wellbeing check on a relative, or close friend, who has a health problem or emotional problem, and who you haven't heard from in a week, save the town some money and go to their house, and when you find them dead and decomposed call the undertaker yourself.

Oh yeah.... the next time an alarm goes off, YOU should respond (make sure you don’t crash and injure anyone while speeding to the alarm because you’ll be sued by an ambulance chaser trying to make a name for themselves), and save the taxpayers some coin. Make sure you call your martini-drinking Atkinson Country Club buddy for backup, so if there's a bad guy in the house, or business, you don't get you head blown off. You and your backup buddy can go play golf after you poop your pants, because the bad guy had a gun.

You say it can’t happen in Atkinson? Ask Franconia Police Corporal Bruce McKay’s family if small town cops have it easy.

My father who served as a police officer for 15 years would be appalled at your blog.

Dad use to say, "Everyone hates cops until they need one".

Anonymous said...

As you usual you trot out the hat the cops argument, when it has been pointed out on here many times that the OFFICERS on the Atkinson force do their jobs, our problem is with the ADMINISTRATION that uses police resources to buy votes from elderly, and intimidate critics.

Those are not proper police functions. And you know what, even if they were every one of us has the God given constitutional right to criticize the actions of our government! and our government does not have the right to retaliate.

Anonymous said...

I love police speeches. It brings a tear to my eye. God bless America.

Let's take a look at facts now, shall we? When I need facts I go to a handy little website known as www.atkinsontaxpayers.org.

I found a document on police statistics showing stats from 2002 to 2005. Without access to any other source of police stats, I'll assume this accurate unless our PD can show otherwise.

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/
pdf/PDStats2002-Oct2005.pdf

I couldn't match up all categories the way police activity was tracked back then as compared to now. There are new categories now and the police log is a call log. I struggled to really analyze with a high level of precision the cost for police work in Atkinson on a per incident basis. I don't think its fair to say there is more police work now compared to 2002-05if today you count littering as a call but before you didn't have a category to track littering for example. There are a number of new categories tracked in 2009 and quite a few categories that looked the same but worded slightly different.

The 2002-05 statistics showed an average of about one incident (call?) per day.

The other fact not pointed out by the author is our police dept actually costs taxpayers about $900,000 when you count in line items that were moved out of the police budget several years ago which are actually costs attributed to the PD including insurance for example.

2009 statistics indicate about 1.47calls per day per the author. I tried to eliminate the new categories tracked in 2009 to try and get closer to 2002-2005 metrics for comparison. You get to about 1.3 incidents per day.

Is police coverage needed in Atkinson? Of course. $900,000 worth for 1-2 incidents per day? Now that's a crime.

Anonymous said...

Wow, are the town lackies desperate or what? Trying to call us "cop haters" is a sure sign they've run out of arguments!

Who sued the chief most often?

FELLOW OFFICERS! And the police union!

Tell me blog critics, was Lt Baldwin a cop hater when he sued the chief? What about the police union, did they hate cops?

You critics look dumber everytime you post. You're obciosly just connected to the Atkinson Mafia somehow, so why don't you try this:

Start your own competing blog; then, we'll see how many people flock to your site and it's theme that "everything is fine in Atkinson."

Because all you do is complain about the blog without ever mentioning...

> The financially draining lawsuits from Consentino
> The lack of transparency in our local government boards (lack of minutes, rampant self interest among board members)
> Poor police management and misspending (a huge fleet of vehicles draining tax money, including a "clown car" for the chiefs personal use

You haven't the guts to engage anyone on these issues; you just carp about the blog.

I propose the managers of this blog create a posting for "blog carping" and transfer all non subject posts to that subject area. I'm sick of the misdirection that these virtual hackers have created, and which has disrupted the flow of this blog.
>

Anonymous said...

"and which has disrupted the flow of this blog. "

By flow, I assume you mean you do not appreciate anyone questioning the continual bashing of the chief, Frank, Jack, and the Police Dept.

Boo hoo!

Just my opinion.

Financially draining lawsuits issued by the same people. Peaks was in 1981 people!

Please explain the "rampant self interests" of Bill Bennett, Bill Friel, and Fred Childs.

Anonymous said...

OH I get it, it is the victims fault that the town is invoved in these financially draining lawsuits. Not the town officials who acted badly in the first place.

Did you ever think if we didnt have a bully for a police chief, or a moderator who violates peoples rights, none of these lawsuits would have happened?

Anonymous said...

And you ssay it is the same people, like officer rivera, officer lorden, officer baldwin, morderator polito, all of those people have sued the town too.

Anonymous said...

So just name the blog I hate Phil and be done with it.

Boo hoo!

Anonymous said...

So I visited the no-spin, facts only lawsuits and complaints section of the ATA. Here are some facts for folks to consider:

LAWSUITS:

Of the five on-going lawsuits, four are from Mark Acciard, Leon Artus, and Gary Brownfrield.

Of the six previous lawsuits, four are from Carol Grant and Mark Acciard. And Wayne Peaks was almost 30 years ago!

COMPLAINTS:

Russ McAllister Complaint - October 5, 2007 - Filed by Leon Artus

Alleged Consentino Violation of RSA 643.1 and 643.2 - September 22, 2007 - Filed by Mark Acciard

Complaint Against Chief Consentino - June 12, 2006 - Filed by Mark Acciard

Complaint Against Chief Consentino - February 21, 2006 - Filed by Mark Acciard

Dispatcher Claims He was Replaced After Filing Grievance - July 8, 2004 - This is a scan of newspaper clipping!

Aside from the Elderly Affairs/AGO issue, there are seven complaints pertaining to Chief Consentino and three are filed from Mark Acciard. The RTK complaint was filed from Leon Artus.

So about 65% of the complaints and lawsuits combined and pertaining to the chief are from the Mark Acciard, Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield and Carol Grant.

No spin there. It's all public documents...

Sorry, and the real bullies are????

Anonymous said...

And please let me clarify, I DO NOT consider Mrs. Grant to be a bully. I consider her to be a TRUE voice of reason in our town.

Anonymous said...

To Anon July 1, 2009 12:24 AM

Great spin job on contents of the Atkinson Taxpayer website. Anyone paying attention understands documents posted there do not represent 100% of the complaints and litigation in town.

You keep mentioning the same individuals like Acciard, Artus, Grant and Brownfield but omit all the others. You leave out names like Brian Kaye, and Steve Lewis and the harrassed Atkinson police officers who filed complaints for example. And then there are all the others where the documents are NOT posted on the website.

It is beyond Bullsh-- and spin to paint a picture like you just did. Many other victims of Phil haven't filed complaints or lawsuits. And we all know there are others. Or the documents just aren't on that website. Your post ignores many facts. Its not just insulting to the names you mentioned its also insulting to the names and their documents not posted on that website.

You just hate the fact that website exists at all. The truth hurts dont it?

Signed,

A victim whose documented case isn't on the ATA website. Yet.

Anonymous said...

You seem to miss the point, the others were not mentioned by name as they were the 35% who were not routinely filing lawsuits or issuing complaints.

And how is it insulting to mention these names? It is a dispassionate fact.

And here is another fact I did not mention. If you look at the lawsuits and complaints listed on ATA filed since 2006, the frequency percentage of the Acciard, Artus, Brownfield group increases exponentially.

Sorry. It's a fact!

Anonymous said...

But why don't you have the guts to defend your heroes instead of justing bitching about the blog?

Anonymous said...

no one ever said they represent 100% of documents about the town. If you see something that isnt there and you think it should be, SEND IT IN!

The site doesn't go looking for documents. it relies on people like you to send them documents. It is a storage place, not a search engine.

You are having a hard time understanding this as it has been said many many times.

IF YOU HAVE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE ON THAT SITE SEND IT IN.

Anonymous said...

some spin.

fyi

artus and brownfeld have sued the town once! The current suit.

Acciard filed an injunction against phil voting on police matters. And he sued the town for allowing phil to keep harrassing him. Two suits.

You make it sound like these people file new stuff every week.

Billy sued the town once, thought he should be promoted to Lt. 4 years out of the academy, and threatened another lawsuit, that he never actually filed, so does that mean he is regarded with the same anger as accard?

Frank sued the town for something that had nothing to do with him, and it got thrown out of court for lack of standing, does that mean he is as hated as artus and brownfeld?

be consistent

Anonymous said...

"But why don't you have the guts to defend your heroes instead of justing bitching about the blog?"

I'm sorry, but that does not have anything to do with the data I've presented.

I might also add that I've always presented a theory or idea and, for the most part, the above response is typical. No real dialogue. No counter point. Just an emotional reaction to a valid statement.

And Anon 12:24, when you say, "The site doesn't go looking for documents. it relies on people like you to send them documents. It is a storage place, not a search engine" Thank you very much for supporting my argument that the ATA is not the unbiased website it is made out to be.

So if I understand you correctly, it is up to we, the people, to send in these public documents. BUT, look at the names that are populated throughout the site: Leon Artus, Mark Acciard, and Gary Brownfield.

Kind of makes you stop and think for a moment, doesn't it...

Sorry, no spin.

Anonymous said...

and as usual you dont have the courage to answer the points presented

Anonymous said...

What points? That doesn't have anything to do with the percentage of lawsuits and COMPLAINTS filed by the same group of people against the same person!

And, with all due respect, it is childish to be pointing the finger at Lt. Baldwin and Frank Polito whining "why don't you hate them too?"

Sorry, it's all in ATA. No spin there...

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting... I can tell you how much money I spend in car payment interest per oil change, but I think it is just as useless as your stat. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make correlations but any person that went to college should know that correlation does not mean relation. And for the person that posted there excitement for a measure of productivity knows very little but how to grab a number and force it to support an opinion, or they are a couple eggs short of a doz.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:53 said: "We can all make numbers say whatever we want."

So true! Consider the garbage topic of this thread. And the garbarge (twice posted) stats of Mark's breakdown of the Police Dept. budget!

We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want. We can all make numbers say whatever we want.

Anonymous said...

I would again ask the blog management to either copy these empty posts to a "useless" folder, or just delete them for a while.

It's obvious that these peoples' only desire is to disrupt the blog, not to add to the conversation. This blog has been more than patient, but it's gone too far, and I feel comfortable trusting the moderator to get things under control.

Anonymous said...

Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!Free speech!!!! We can say whatever we want!!!!

Anonymous said...

Yes, let's delete all the trash on this blog. You know, the stuff that actually makes sense. Better yet, let's have TWO folders! One can be for the people who criticize the blog and that can be in the "useful" folder. The other folder can be for the rest of the posts here. We can put those posts in a folder called the "loony bin"!

Works for me! Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon July 1, 2009 12:24 AM

I will try to follow your logic.

Baldwin sued the town but you don't include his name. Frank sued the town and the case was thrown out of court. But you don't include his name.

Others that sued the town, well there just bullies and their cases have no merit? Especially the one where Consentino was found in Contempt of Court. Or now Frank admits his "misunderstanding" of the law.

Yes its all perfectly clear to me now. Like the other poster said: be consistent.

Anonymous said...

And all the other posts are from the psycho narcissistic wackjobs who can't stand losing control of the town or even an argument on a blog. THATS what its all about.

Anonymous said...

I get it now. The word "loonies" is a new word replacing the old marketing term "vendetta".

Its harder to sell a vendetta concept for a group of people cause seems unlikely everyone would have a vendetta. You use "loonies" to group 'em all. And you infer you must be the "sane" group because they are loony. A much more effective slander campaign. You guys are really good at marketing slander. I'm impressed. The inconsistencies pointed out in your posts do erode your credibility though. Saying your sane don't make it so. Keep repeating it I'm sure someone'll believe you.

What your doing is motivating the so called loonies to prove in court they are not loonies. Its not going to be about money anymore. Someone like Steve Lewis doesn't need the money. Good job motivating the newly labled loonies to drag the case out for years and cost us taxpayers a fortune. The counterclaim strategy will fail because there is so much evidence on the Atkinson Taxpayers website alone no court will think the case has no merit which costs more in legal fees for defense. The counterclaim approach satisfies the narcissistic defendents egos but accomplishes nothing. When witnesses like Brian Kaye shows his letters and testifies on the stand do you think the jury will conclude "loony"?

The court of public opinion you've controlled for so long is slowly being lost. Donations are down. support is down. The only thing going up is the number of senior transports and the number of posts on this blog.

In my humble opinion, your discredit the blog strategy is a failure. Your counterclaim strategy is a failure. Keep it up though because you guys are great for looney morale and publicity!

You better hope the "loonies" are not like the "Idiots" of Red Sox fame. As I recall, those idiots won the world series. Which aint bad for a bunch of idiots.

I'm a loony
You're a loony
We're all loony
Wouldn't you like to be a loony too?

LOL
BLOG ON

Anonymous said...

The cowards (or fools) that support the Atkinson Mafia have clearly stopped taking their meds...

Anonymous said...

Meds, are you kidding? They are so full of it (and themselves) no laxative will work on them anymore. Not to worry though, once they are in court I can hear the FLUSHING SOUND now. They will all be in good company once they hit the holding tank. I predict they will turn on one another in order to save themselves. You know………..like guppies eat their young? LOL

Anonymous said...

to Anon July 2, 2009 1:40 PM

Your point about them turning on each other I disagree with. They're firmly convinced they are right and desperate to cling to power. Only sheer force from a courtroom will make change occur. Don't forget Phil ignored a court order before and was found in contempt. This fight will go to the bitter ugly end in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

To Anon July 2, 2009 2:20 PM

I agree it will be an ugly bitter fight to the end because they don't realize the fight is over.

I'm hearing one has already turned and when the others find out....................?

I'm also hearing there is bigger and better things to come that they are not aware of.

They have backed themselves into a corner and.........well.......you know what happens when a rabid animal gets put into that position. Especially, when there is more than one in the same corner.

Anonymous said...

I believe Sarah Palin may potentially cause a problem for the moderator of this little blog!

"The abruptness of her announcement and the mystery surrounding her plans has fed widespread speculation. But Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

Go get em Lt!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

you mean when you accuse someone of breaking the law? Like Phil has done so many times in public?