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, June 1, 2009

What's This? Town officials that make decisions based on numbers, rather than politics?

Pelham police opt to cruise in Chevy Impalas
By Terry Date

PELHAM, N.H. — Police are cruising for criminals in black-and-white Chevrolet Impalas these days.

The Impalas replaced the silver Ford Crown Victorias as the leading ride in the department's 14-vehicle fleet with the arrival of the seven Impalas May 22.

Pelham police Lt. Brian McCarthy said he and police Chief Joseph Roark were sold on the Impala lease program after they learned its price — and that Ford plans to discontinue its Crown Victoria program in the future.

The three-year lease will end up costing about the same amount of money the town pays to buy two Crown Victorias each year — $60,000, McCarthy said.

The Impalas get better gas mileage, about 16 or 17 miles per gallon, as opposed to the 12 miles per gallon the Crown Victorias get. And the Impalas are front-wheel drive vehicles, which handle better in the snow and ice, he said.

Selectman Hal Lynde said the board encouraged McCarthy and Roark to broker the Impala lease when they brought it to selectmen last fall during budget talks.

"It actually saves us money," Lynde said. "We expect to see a reduction in maintenance costs."

McCarthy said the department traded Crown Victorias to help pay for outfitting the new cruisers.

The Pelham police fleet includes the seven Impalas, a pickup truck used by the animal control officer, a Ford Explorer and five administrative cars, McCarthy said.

When this discussion was brought up in Atkinson, two years ago, the Chief rejected it out of hand claiming "those will never work as police vehicles"


Anonymous said...

Why don't you just rename this blog "I hate Phil"?

Anonymous said...

Who is Chairperson of the Atkinson Committee for police officer education and retraining?

Anonymous said...

I'm speaking as neither a supporter or critic of the Chief. Quite frankly, most all the bad stuff I've heard about him has come from this forum.

It seems that every article printed here somehow gets an anti-chief slant, whether he's involved or not.

It is getting rather tiresome. If you are looking for a balanced view of things, don't bother coming here.

Anonymous said...

More people come to the blog every day when it gets interesting or important. But in lazy summer and at vacation time I wonder if the blog readers have mostly gone fishing.

Your continual whining about "all the bad stuff I've heard on this forum.." exposes your basic fear of citizen awareness and free speach. You post the same anti-blog diatribe so it seems.

It may be effective but I suggest it is mostly effective in your imagination. Still, it does garner brownie points so the value is incontestable.

Have you considered taking a creative writing course? A Political Science course would be beneficial for your resume. Ok, how about a course in Statistics and Engineering? It is Engineering you need to study at this point in your career. But then there is the sleep apnea issue. That warrants studied investigation or all the coursework will be for naught.

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to the the Atkinson Reporter is anti-police. They criticize/slander Phil and Lt. Baldwin endlessly and they side with right wing nutjobs like Ed Naile of CNHT. CNHT once had a link on their website comparing support of public education to ethnic cleansing! Ugh...what a bunch of greedy, partisan much hate, so little discourse.

Anonymous said...

June 1, 2009 9:32 AM says "Quite frankly, most all the bad stuff I've heard about him has come from this forum."

Have you looked at the Atkinson Taxpayer Association Website? There is quite a lengthy description of information that shows the "bad stuff" was decades in the making.

Please review the complete history at

If you read the "tabs" your hair will stand on end. Mine did.

Anonymous said...

Ed Naile is my personal hero. And I mean it! He is THE MAN. He has integrity and guts and he never gives up. That's bad news for political hacks state-wide.

Go see what he is up to now at:

Anonymous said...

The only creative writing done on the blog is by the Moderator and a few of his followers.

I personally have absolutely no fear of public awareness and free speech.

Problem with the free speech part is that it is mostly rumor and anti-most every organization in town.

If want to consider this forum as providing public awareness, fine. A more proper term is a gossip column

No, it is not a fear of citizen awareness and free speech. I think the fear is on the part of the moderator(s). They have no problem dishing the dirt, but seem to have little tolerance for criticism directed at them. Their credibility is being challenged, and for good reason. One only has to read the moderators recent entries and then compare them to the facts, or lack thereof.

The old forum was a powerful tool. It had credibility and an active following. This forum, a pathetic wannabe.

Anonymous said...

The Atkinson Taxpayers Forum is supported by CNHT. Charles Douglas is a lawyer that is associated with CNHT. CNHT has a definite agenda (i.e. it takes a school to bankrupt a village) and this is supposed to go to get "facts"? Besides everyone knows the moderator of this blog and the Atkinson Taxpayers Association are in cahoots anyway.

Anonymous said...

The issue of criticisms of Phil or Billy or the PD is irrelevant.

The question you should be asking is;

Are those critical stories true? Did they actually happen? There are a bunch of actual documents on the taxpayers website, that lead me to believe that they are largely true, if so, that is a big problem! And an even bigger one is why the town doesn't do anything about it. Also, why we the taxpayers continue to pay the personal legal fees of people that just can't seem to keep out of trouble?

Anonymous said...

"The issue of criticisms of Phil or Billy or the PD is irrelevant."

Then why does the moderator continue to interject such criticism into practically everyone of his posts? Hardly irrelevant.

Regarding lawsuits. You'll notice not one of them went to trial. When a lawsuit does make it that far that can mean many things, not necessarily made public.

Every story has two sides. Have you ever considered, for even a moment, there are things about these suits we may not know? This sort of thing happens every day.

Unless a suit makes it to open court and a judgment rendered by a judge/jury, it can be subject to all sorts of interpretation.

Not exactly the kind of thing this blog likes to consider, and I'm sure all kinds of spin will be applied, but there it is. So, you can consider this with an open mind, or continue with the same old, same old.

Anonymous said...

As for renaming the blog to "I hate Phil" I disagree. I don't hate Phil. He's simply not qualified for his position and all problems stemming from the PD are the responsibility of its leadership just like any other organization. The lost gun, the numerous car accidents, tardy reports of endangered children, violations of standards and training, violations of state law regarding donation accounts etc. Are just too hard to ignore. By the way, just how many crimes has our detective actually solved in the last year? The last 3 years?

He's tainted the PD with all his political activities paid for by taxpayer monies I think people are sick of it. The bloated PD budget is poorly managed and yes I have looked at the numbers which are dowloadable from the Atkinson Taxpayer website. When you compare surrounding towns to Atkinson, compare the actual work required and spike in costs in recent years the words "cost effective" or "efficient" just don't make it. My guess is the PD budget could be cut by $200K-$250K especially when you consider the 2000 rides they give out to seniors which is nuts. Yes I know about the Elderly Affairs budget shenanigans and yes its just my humble little opinion which I am fully entitled to state whether people like it or not. Let's not forget the PD seemed to operate fine last year when it was short staffed and actually spent less than budgeted.

The anti-blog postings are made by just two people and we know who they are. As my dad used to say, just a few deer can make a lot of tracks. Or was that somebody else's dad?

Long live the blog! While somewhat imperfect, it's the first free speech forum in Atkinson. Someday people will be unafraid of our police state to publicly say their names.

I agree if you go to the Atkinson Taxpayer website, there are dozens of articles and court documents that people can read and form their own opinion. What is the number of complaint filings and lawsuits a cop has to have before their credibility is questioned? 10? 15? When your own police officers file complaints against you, generally speaking its not a good sign. But all the trials were settled out of court because none of them would ever go to trial because our insurance company always knows its cheaper to get plaintiffs to settle than defend someone. I guess higher insurance premiums paid by taxpayers are acceptable? Save one contempt of court matter that was issued by a judge against Phil. Yes, Guilty as charged folks. I think contempt of court by a police chief in and by itself is sufficient grounds for termination regardless of all the other documented evidence. Just not in Atkinson. Again, just my humble little opinion.

OK defenders, start your ranting! Here come the deer.

Anonymous said...

I think this article makes a great point.
At town meeting, some guy stood up and asked why the police dept. was going to get $780k or so to run this year, when last year they only spent $640k or so? THAT was a GREAT QUESTION! The budget committee just fluffed it off, and never answered. Then Phil got up and told that guy he had better get his facts straight!
But I was wondering the same thing! So this article about other towns actually running the numbers, and deciding to cut costs, hits home.

Anonymous said...

but what you have to ask yourself about those lawsuits is, did the stuff they are complaining about really happen? And if it happened to us, would we feel it was wrong too?

Most of the stuff in those suits I saw happen on TV! And if it was being done to me I would be PISSED!

So I don't question the going to trial part, I want to know why it was necessary for these people to go to court, when it is clearly wrong for a public official to act like that.

Also, Acciard's suit did go to trial, and Phil was Ordered in contempt of court. So I guess a court DID decide he did something wrong!

Anonymous said...

I think the only deer making tracks around here are the small, lawsuit happy anti-Phil crowd. Deliberative session showed them they were a minority and they respond with a lawsuit. Great way to save us our tax dollars guys!

And by the way, did you notice that on the Atkinson Taxpayers website that you so proudly point us to, the names of the most of the individuals in the "Ongoing Lawsuits" link? Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield, and Mark Acciard. All three proud CNHT supporters. And Mark is listed as a team member of of this blog!

So consider that the laundry list of offenses that raise the hair on the back of some of your necks are all coming from mostly the same crew. And with all of the legals costs they are forcing the town to incur, they want to be considered protector of the tax dollars!

Oh yeah, nothing but the truth here...

Anonymous said...

Here is what I read from poster June 1, 2009 2:17 PM

I know you are but what am I? (childhood rant)
Spin spin spin, blah blah, ignore those documents, spin spin blah blah blah.

From the sounds of it you have a small antlered complex as well for a deer.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:22,

Is that the best you can do?

If anyone is coming across childish it is you (with your sad, little --pun intended -- inferences. And it's funny how fast you got that response up...Did you even take the time to read the message? It's almost as if you had your response ready to go.

So sad...

Anonymous said...

And by the way, I never said to ignore the documents. I said the opposite. Look closely at them and see how it's mostly ALL the same people -- over and over again -- with lawsuits against the town.

Anonymous said...

From all the discussion the only thing I come away with is, this blog and it's owners have a real hard on over Phil, and will keep on reminding us of it every chance they can.

When someone calls them on it, we are treated with the most remarkable prose, like "Spin spin spin, blah blah, ignore those documents, spin spin blah blah blah." Absolutely brilliant

Intelligent discussion is impossible here. They're not interested in it, or not capable of it. I tend to believe the latter.

Time for a new blog, with new owners, considerably less bias, and roadside signs one can actually read.

Put a fork in it. Time for this one to go.

Anonymous said...

Nice try at distraction and avoiding the facts. Spin away my friend spin away. You're only proving my point.

The negative publicity campaign against the "same people" has been quite effective I will admit. Phil is very good at painting his detractors as the problem, no doubt about it they all have a vendetta against him. The old V word. Either that or they can't get their facts straight.

You're using the same tactic in lumping the same group of people together. Yet you fail to mention some FACTS:

1) Two complaints were filed against Phil by his own police officers and Phil was found to be at fault. I believe the word guilty is applicable.

2) Mr. Acciard got a court injunction against Phil which Phil later ignored and was found in contempt of court. Oops.

3) Steve Lewis is a new plaintiff to the group. I wouldn't consider him a founding member.

To say its mostly all the same people and somehow portray them as always being wrong and Phil as always innocent is in a word, untrue. The facts are clear and documented. Spin away all you want but you just can't dismiss an entire group of people as the lunatic fringe and somehow paint Phil as an innocent bystander. It gets comical at that point because we've all seen him yell at people in BOS meetings and deliberative session. I think its funny how he heckles people from the back of the room at deliberative and everyone thinks his behavior is OK. They are enablers using his position to benefit themselves. Its all about the political favors. That's what its all about. His supporters are on his payroll or got a town job, contract or got elected through his efforts and influence. Or they're voters who get free rides to senior appointments or events. Undoubtedly, his supporters fall into one of those "groups". so if you want to talk about groups in town you have to talk about all of 'em. And that's a fact. Now go post some baseless spin drivel.

Anonymous said...

"just can't dismiss an entire group of people as the lunatic fringe"

Think I will do just that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:46,

How ironic that you try to differentiate the Phil "detractors" as being more than mostly the same group of people, when, in fact, that is not the case and, on the other hand lump all of the Phil "supporters" into ether on the payroll or receiving services from Elderly Affairs.

Seems to me you are guilty of your own accusation...and spin.

Anonymous said...

I'm neither a supporter, or detractor of the Chief. I know good things about him, and I know bad ones.

What I cannot accept is any pretense this forum speaks for all of Atkinson.

The people of run this thing have made it EXTREMELY clear. Chief is evil, they are good.

Love their arguments, as nonsensical as they are.

As I said, I neither pro or con Phil. Based on the content, I'm definitely anti-blog.

So, grab your hat and find a camera to stick it in front of.

Anonymous said...

Really, Where is Acciard listed as a team member of this blog? and what does "team member" mean?

Anonymous said...

What does it matter whose names are on them, did that stuff happen or not?

Anonymous said...

Why is it you guys always bitch about "the legal costs that acciard, grant, brownfeld, artis," are costing this town?

Would there be any of these costs if Phil didn't do the stupid things that he did?

Anonymous said...

The argument that cracks me up the most is that people post anonymously because of fear of retribution from the PD. They have this misguided notion that if Phil was not "The Chief" anymore, everyone would post here using their own name. It evokes images of all the little munchkins emerging from their homes after Dorothy's home dropped on the wicked witch.

"Someday people will be unafraid of our police state to publicly say their names." Oh, the self-importance! LOL!!!

Even if Acciard, Artus, and Brownfield were running Atkinson, I'd be willing to bet most everyone would probably still post as anon here. And furthermore, I'd bet the house the blog would be full of complaints about the way THEY run things!

Lunatic fringe? I think so....

Anonymous said...

It is funny, I just came here from and looked at the lawsuit page, like everybody said, and what I see, is lawsuits every few years going back 28 years! They started right after Phil became chief, and every few years there are new ones, and every few years there are new names, but the common denominator, is they are ALWAYS about abuses of authority by phil.

Anonymous said...

Mark Acciard team member:

Anon 4:43, can you please give evidence where the lawsuits against are every couple of years for the past 28 years? There is the Peaks case, which was filed in 1982. And all of the other cases against Phil are from 2005 and on.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's a 23 year gap where there was no lawsuit. And then it's that same cast of characters problem you have.

And I'll be nice enough to issue your response for you:

Spin spin spin, blah blah, ignore those documents, spin spin blah blah blah.!!!!!

Anonymous said...

A team member to the blog can, if granted, have all the admin rights to the blog.

The question is can he post as the Atkinson Reporter...

Anonymous said...

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding everything or perhaps all these documents are fake, but if true, wasn't Phil found guilty of harrassing and intimidating his own police officers and guilty of being found in Contempt of Court? Aren't we talking smoking gun guilty here? Aren't those the facts? Are they not facts? Someone please clarify or explain for me are these facts or not? If their not, why not?

Anonymous said...

Here are the facts, this whole thing is ugly and personal and it is dragging the whole town down.

We have a blog, which has a team member who happens to have a $3 million lawsuit out against the chief and several other elected officials. We've recently had a very slanderous topic levied about the Lt, only to be pulled down due to lack of evidence. But the Atkinson Reporter was kind enough to let us draw our own conclusions.

Yet we are expected to believe that you find the truth here?! I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions about that!

Anonymous said...

Are you gonna answer the questions or what? You're funny.

What's with the obsessive compulsive concern about who's blogmaster and who posts here? Why so much effort to discredit a blog? Its nuts. Anyone knows anybody can post anything on any blog. Blogs with anonymous posters by definition have no credibility. An ongoing diligent effort to discredit an anonymous blog only gives it more credibility, duh.

I read all the trashing of the blog and think boy somebody really doesn't want THIS information getting out. Thank you for the entertainment.

Anonymous said...

And we are still waiting for evidence of the lawsuits "every few years going back 28 years!" with Phil as the common denominator.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:26, You're right. Why let something like credibility and bias stand in the way of this blog? Especially as they criticize and trash the people trying to make our town a better place. Now that's entertainment!

Anonymous said...

The Atkinson selectmen are generating yet another new lawsuit. They are NOT above the law.

Anonymous said...

"The Atkinson selectmen are generating yet another new lawsuit. They are NOT above the law."

See, this exactly what we've been talking about. An accusation but no details, no facts, nada.

How is anyone supposed to take this stuff seriously?

It was sunny and cool today. Definitely the Chief's fault.

Anonymous said...

Of course they are! And I know just the group of people who will file it against them!

Anonymous said...

Peak case ran from 1980 originally until 1988! it was really 3 cases.

In 1990 or 1991 I dont remember which you had Lt. Rick Daniels quitting, and threatening lawsuit when Phil claimed he "wiped out 12 years of computer records" PD didn't even have computers in 1979.

In 1995 NHPSTC came to town to investigate phil's hours, and other complaints.

In 1999 Officer Rivera filed labor complaint, this one ended in Phil being ORDERED to stop Bullying his officers!

In 2000 You had Dale Childs complaint of phil using PD to investigate her because she complained to NHPSTC. He even sent a letter to Hampstead trying to get her fired.

In 2000, you also had Steve Lewis complaint, about phil screaming insanely at him in his own office for filing a warrant article for a full time chief.

In 2002, Another labor case.

In 2004 another labor case, this time with Officer Lorden.

In 2005, Acciard ethics case, phil is ordered to stop voting on police matters.

In 2006 Grant removal case, phil dismissed when he left office in 2007.

In 2007, Grant civil rights case

In 2008 Acciard civil rights case

In 2009 Artus, Brownfield civil rights case.

But you are right, Phil is a saint, he has done nothing wrong, and ALL of these people have vendettas against him, drink some more kool-aid, it tastes good.

Anonymous said...

Hey 5:30, who is the blog dissing that is trying to make the town a better place

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:49. I see. So we have one lawsuit and many complaints. It is interesting how this blog perpetuates the notion that Consentino is CONSTANTLY* being sued, when in fact, aside from the Peaks case back in the 80's all of the other lawsuits are from 2005 on and from Acciard, Artus, Brownfield, and Mrs. Grant.

So why don't you rename the blog "I hate Phil"?

*"I just came here from and looked at the lawsuit page, like everybody said, and what I see, is lawsuits every few years going back 28 years!"

Anonymous said...

Correction: I meant to say prior to 2005, we have one lawsuit and many complaints.

Anonymous said...

It's dark now. Definitely the Chief's fault.

Anonymous said...


Mr./Mrs Critic has now been permanently "outed" as a complete Phil supporter.

Very obviously, this person's mission has been to try to distract the work of this blog with lies and false charges.

It's time that we start to engage this person less, and simply refute any of the lies they try to spread in their defense of Phil Consentino, whom they blindly defend.

This person is obviously one of the Atkinson Mafia, and perhaps the man himself. Let's stop giving him the satisfaction of engaging him directly and simply provide the facts that refute his empty arguments.

Anonymous said...

Please show one lie or false charge by Mr./Mrs. Critic. He/she actually did a good job of backing up their claims with links and references.

Anonymous said...

You are all missing the point in your zeal to exonerate Phil.

Did he really do the stuff these lawsuits complain about?

And would we like it if he did them to us?

When you can answer that basic question, I will listen to you. As long as you ignore it, you ignore the root of the problem.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

June 2, 2009 6:27 AM

You would really love it if it were only one person critical of this forum. And, yet once again, you got it all wrong. You'd better wake up because there is definitely more than one Mr. Critic here.

And again, you make assumptions with no one making a declarative statement. Did it ever cross your tiny little brain that someone can be anti blog, AND, also anti chief.

This forum long ago stopped being a place for civil discussion of issues facing this town. Rather, virtually every topic has been steered in the direction of the Anti-Chief position.

It does not matter whether I'm pro or anti chief. I'm definitely anti blog because all it has become is a forum of hate directed at one man. Screw everything else in town.

That is why this blogs time has passed. Objectivity is not a part of its charter.

Ok, your turn Mr. Three Questions.

Anonymous said...

Again, I said nothing about ani blog or anti chief, I could care less if you are critical about blog or not, what I am asking is;

Did Phil do that stuff?

Was it right?

And would you like it if he did it to you?

Until those questions are answered we can't even talk about whose side has more merit.

Anonymous said...

Critic, something big new for your narrow little mind. Purvis, our Tax Assessor has our homes overvalued up the wazoooo and the selectmen love it. That pays for all your toys. If they assessed our homes on what THEY ARE NOW WORTH you could not spend like drunken sailors.

They told us the town hall would cost half of what it ended up costing. And you spread the lie that it will be ONLY $300,000 out of our citizen pockets. Lie, lie, lie. You are liars. It will be in the millions for that unneeded, UNWANTED town hall expansion.

Down with your Tower and down with the tax and spenders.

Anonymous said...

June 2, 2009 10:31 AM

Oooooh, someone did not take their meds this morning.

And now that home assessment has entered the discussion that kinda narrows the field of who is contributing.

June 2, 2009 10:24 AM

Again with the questions. Geeeez.

Anonymous said...

Lowering your assessment will not lower your tax bill, people!

In 2008, the total budget - including school, state school and county - was $15,045,421. The total town valuation was $!,018,644. Divide the budget by the valuation and you get last year's tax rate (or darned close...I'm off 11 cents).

Now decrease the total town valuation by 25%, and end up with $793,983. Divide the budget by the town valuation and get $19.70. Also probably off a little; then multiply your amended assessment by the amended tax rate - just about the same. Except that your tax rate is higher, and closer to what other towns are paying.

Moreover.....the County rate is $.86; The town is $2.14; the school (combined) is $11.88 On my house, I pay roughly $650 to the town and
$258 to the county. Then I pay $3,564 to the school. Tell me, please, where your money goes?

Most of the figures were obtained from the 2008 Annual Report. I understand the Selectmen "laid off" $450,000 on the tax rate. This year, they don't have that kind of money. Brace yourself.

MAcciard said...

I have had this conversation many times with the town's re assessment advocates, assuming that the budget stays the same, lowering everyones assessment by 10% means that the rate per thousand goes up by 10% because the size of the pie that needs to be funded is staying the same.

The only way to reduce your taxes is either to spend less, meaning keeping close watch on the major budgets; police, fire, highway, library, waste management is the 2nd highest budget in town after police, but I did not include that because it is a contract, unless you want to stop town paid trash pick up like all of our neighbors have done.

The other way to reduce taxes is to dramatically increase the tax base, like, say, for instance building 300 new $400,000 condos over on the country club property.