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.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

And then there were two...... the bully rides again.


And then there were two...... the bully rides again.

Well it appears there is a fresh controversy in our quiet, quaint little town, and it centers around the same person as always, and some of the same complaints. It seems that a resident has filed a conflict of interest petition against our saintly, selfless, humble, police chief, and the police chief as usual has labelled his antagonist as "having a vendetta" against him. This, of course, for those who are keeping count will be approximately the 47th resident to have a "vendetta" against Father Phil(sorry Mother Theresa was already taken).

But Wait! There is a twist in this saga, the conflict of interest committee, already one member short, had a meeting on Monday night evidently to talk about brooming this stupid, nettlesome complaint, and after that meeting TWO of the committee members RESIGNED! Yes folks, this complaint is so explosive that the chairman, and vice chairman of the committee resigned rather than have to decide this case. Hmmm, what could this be? It must be HUGE! Well the details of the complaint are, as yet, unknown, but it Is known that the person filing the complaint DID request that Jack Sapia, then vice chair of the committee, recuse himself from participating because he is in lawsuit with the chief(again, for those who are counting, must be is approximately the 32nd lawsuit alleging improper behavior on the part of our chief). This was done in a simple short letter. To contrast this, Our resident Bully with a Badge sent the committee a letter that he had compiled a 32 page report on one of the committee members. Apparently he has been "investigating" this person and collected all the letters complaints, emails, and information that he could to paint this person as;...... YOU GUESSED IT.... "HAVING A VENDETTA AGAINST HIM"! WOO HOOO! ANOTHER ONE!

BUT WAIT! It GETS BETTER! This bullying, egomaniacal, paragon of victimhood couldn't be satisfied to stop there, no sirree, he supposedly EMAILED THIS TO THE EAGLE TRIBUNE FOR PUBLICATION! With this committee effectively defunct, and the complaint pretty much dead, there can be no earthly reason to try to destroy someone publicly other than the usual bullying malfeasance of an unqualified, uneducated dolt.

So let's do a quick recap, with his buddy Jack's resignation there are now only two members of this committee, and he is working overtime to bump one of these last remaining two off, even though the committee is no more. Yes, that's right, they can't DO ANYTHING! No Quorum, No Committee. This complaint will likely die now for lack of anyone to deal with it, and once again apparently everyone has been bludgeoned into silence. And, again, as usual, He will not stop attacking his critics until they reach the point that they will never speak out against his inappropriate behavior again. And once again, it is looking like the selectmen will turn their usual blind eye to these egregious actions and quietly pray that he retires so that they don't have to man up and actually put a stop to the very type of behavior that has cost the town and it's insurance carrier HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL FEES AND SETTLEMENTS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS ALONE!


Anonymous said...

So the Chief is in trouble again and the Selectmen aren't going to do anything about it?

What was the complaint? What did it say that upset the Chief so bad that he went to the newspaper? How did he manage to get people to quit the Conflict Committee and why can't a new committee take up where that last committee left off?

Why won't the Selectmen fire this guy? What does he have on them that keeps them from acting?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that he would send information to the paper about a private resident, especially as they haven't done anything criminal.

Anonymous said...

Me, I'm ashamed to live in a town with the likes of Sapia and Polito who support this guy Consentino who cant qualify as a full time police chief. They should be sent packing.

And now ...DESTROY our town Conflict of Interest Committee and prevent it from meeting? Who is not outraged?

None of these people have the ethics or morals of a groundhog. And it is going to come back around and bit them hard in the Sooner than later is my bet.

Anonymous said...

Moderator, can you copy and paste the comments regarding this from the previous article (original submission)?

Anonymous said...

Enough is enough. Consentino has something on all local politicans. He has to in order to stay in office, right?

If anyone complains, he uses his office to do illegal background checks or makes up false charges and has them arrested.

Get it folks? The Chief is the biggest crook in this town followed by his fellow crooks that are in power.

Cut the head off the Chief snake and the others will fall.


Anonymous said...

Keep an eye open for articles on the New Hampshire Insider.

"This town (Atkinson) has an endless list of lawsuits involving the police chief we need not detail here. But the thug has a new wrinkle regarding a town ethics violation against him I will write about in a separate article."

Anonymous said...

What are the details, the facts, the circumstances of the complaint?

Why publish something when there are no facts, etc to report?

I want to know what this is all about. Everything in this post is heresay at this point. It is like a child teasing another child, "I know something I won't tell!"

Put all the cards on the table and let the chips fall where they may.

Stop stirring the turd, so to speak.


Anonymous said...

To Anon April 9, 2010 3:53 AM

Come on Jack, quit trying to pretend you don't know the facts. You resigned from the board because it didn't get swept under the carpet at Tuesday’s meeting. By resigning, you and Haslett effectively supported the Chief again by dissolving the committee.

Here is the article that CON-sentino had the ET write in today’s edition, so once again the Chief strikes first blood to discredit a town taxpayer.

Cut and paste this site into your browser to see what CON-sentino wants you to believe.


Anonymous said...

Sapia resigns but should have resigned a long long time ago. Isn't he in a lawsuit with his buddy Consentino?

And Confict of Interest Chairman Haslett, this guy who promotes his honor and ethics. He is elected by the voters to defend the town from wrong and he just up and resigns? He walks away? What kind of Person just walks away fom doing the right thing for the citizens who voted him into office? He either lacks........probably everything.

Why did Haslett walk away? Cause the "going got tough"?Should our soldiers in battle also just drop their responsibily and walk away when the going gets tough?

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

facts will come out.
the chief will see to it.
the chief is not at fault 100% of the time.
the motives behind the "vendetta"
are not always to help us "taxpayers" out.
wait and see who the "victim" is here.
review the docs and make your own judgement.
thank you chief for sending them to the eagle trib if you actually did.
why not have the remaining member post her side of the story.
i can't wait for da facts.

MAcciard said...

To 8:58am;

Although I am not totally certain,I believe Mr. Hazlett is a retire Naval Lt. Cmdr.

So your comment about the soldiers, and courage is probably unwarranted.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Three members make a quorum.
The Conflict of Interest committee needs one honorable resident to seek appointment. Hey complainers, step up and do the job. Here's your chance to walk the walk.

MAcciard said...

For the person who asked, the complaint is a public document, here it is;

I am writing to you to file a COI complaint against Police Chief Philip Consentino. This is a very complex matter, and therefore there are a number of attached documents to make this situation clearer for your committee.


1.) On or about July 3, 2009, a resident apparently saw police dispatcher Lynne Cunningham sending out “thank you for your donation” letters to people who had donated to the “Atkinson Police Charitable Fund”(hereinafter referred to as APCF), this organization being a private corporation listing as it’s “president” One Philip Consentino, who also serves as police chief and director of elderly affairs for the Town of Atkinson (see attachment “A”). These letters were sent from the police dispatch center computer, using town purchased ink, toner, paper, and of course the dispatcher’s time. Chief Consentino responded by having a reflective film put on the dispatch window, so that no one would see that happening again. He also immediately fired off a letter to Mr. Neill, an employee of the Town elderly affairs dept. and also a director of the APCF, notifying him that “HIS “ charity had used the services of a police employee and restitution had to be made. This resulted in a $15.24 check being made to the town for her time.

2.) In August of 2009, when I was in the police dept. to get some reports, In response to my question about the reflective film, Dispatcher Cunningham told me; “we don’t just do police work back here, we do clerical work too, someone saw something they shouldn’t have and complained about it, and the chief had this film put up so it won’t happen again.” This is a direct quote from dispatcher Cunningham, and clearly indicates that the practice will continue, otherwise the film would not be necessary. The selectmen never authorized the modification of any government buildings, in particular the police station by the chief, or his corporation. There is also no record of any donation to the town to cover the cost of this film, nor would any private corporation have any authority to simply modify a town building on it’s own, without selectmen approval, which would have to take place at a public meeting.

2.) On numerous occasions throughout the fall and winter of 2009, and the first to months of 2010, Mr. Consentino has spoken before the board of selectmen, representing the APCF, discussing the impending donation to be made to the town in return for the purchase of a Subaru for the elderly affairs dept. I would furnish those minutes but they are not available online.

3.) Last week the Town Report came out, and on page 52, Report of Elderly Affairs, Mr. Consentino “gives thanks” to the “elderly affairs personnel” including; JoAnne Consentino, Charlie McCarthy, and Lynne Cunningham, all three of which are police employees, and not on the payroll of the elderly affairs dept. Further, the Town Report, on the same page, states; “If any senior should require assistance with utility bills, prescriptions or minor household repairs, please give us a call and through the new “Atkinson Police Charitable Fund” we will be able to provide you with the assistance you need.”

4.) The Taxpayers, in the 2009, budget increased the elderly affairs budget by 100%, or $20,000 to cover items that had previously been paid for by the (formerly) town operated donation account. These items are now in the budget. Further the taxpayers paid $5,000 in “separation costs” at the direction of the NH Attorney General’s office, Charitable Trusts unit. They found that the (formerly) town owned donation account was being managed in an illegal manner, and offered two options to bring it into compliance; A.) Turn it over to the Trustees of the Trusts Funds for open and above board management, or B.) A private non-profit corporation could be formed which would operate on it’s own. The chief chose this second, totally opaque option, thus avoiding any oversight or accountability at all.

MAcciard said...


Section I. Definitions, Interest of the COI Ordinances defines an interest as; “Acting as an agent of a person or company in dealings with the town.” Also as; “A town member acting for the town with a person or company that is an employer of the member”.

Section V., Prohibited Conducted, defines such prohibited conduct as;
A.)“In his official capacity introduce, discuss, deliberate, approve, or vote on any matter in which he has an interest(defined above) known to said member.”
B.) “Knowingly enter into any discussion without first, publicly and for the record, stating dealings, interests, relationships, and possible interests between him and the issue under deliberation.”
C.) “Knowingly participate in town business without disclosing all potential conflicts of interest”
D.) “Knowingly use town property and labor for personal use.”
E.) “Use any proprietary information acquired through or by virtue of his or her official position for his or her financial benefit or for the financial benefit of any other person or business. The foregoing does not apply to information available to the general public.”


As director of Elderly Affairs, Mr. Consentino clearly has an “interest” as defined by the COI, in the operations of said dept.

As “President of the APCF” Mr. Consentino clearly has an “interest” as defined by the ordinance in the operations, fundraising, and continued success of the APCF.

The use of Dispatcher Cunningham to type and send letters to donors to his private business, constitutes an egregious abuse of the authority of his office, and a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D as stated above. Chief has already admitted this violation both in print and in public and has reimbursed the town $15.24 for it from his private corporation. The installation of the reflective film indicates the likelihood that this practice continues, which would open the chief up to the additional charge of once again giving false information to a board or committee. Ms. Cunningham should be questioned about these details.

The use of the Town owned proprietary resource, known as the Elderly Affairs customer list for fundraising purposes for his private corporation, constitutes an even more egregious abuse of authority, and an even greater violation of the COI. This list is not available to any other private corporations, for profit or non profit, for any purposes whatsoever, and has never been authorized by the selectmen to be used as a marketing and fundraising tool for any private business, and is a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D and E, as stated above.

The use of the police dispatch computer to house the elderly affairs depts.. client list is a selectmen problem, as is the use of police personnel for elderly affairs work, but the use of this computer, ink, paper, and labor to print private marketing and fundraising materials is a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D and E, as stated above.

MAcciard said...

On August 20, 2008, Mr. Consentino used his official position as police chief to authorize himself, as President of the APCF to use the name “Atkinson Police” in the title of his private corporation, without prior selectman approval.( see attachment “A”). This gives the APCF, a private corporation controlled by Mr. Consentino the appearance of being town owned or affiliated, and as the town has no control or oversight over this corporation, that is a false picture, one that has been reinforced numerous times by Mr. Consentino’s own statements in public and in fundraising calling the APCF the same old donation account under a new name. That is in fact not true, as many of the budgetary line items paid for by the former town owned donation account in years past, are now in the town’s budget, and are not being paid out of Mr. Consentino’s private corporation. Further Mr. Consentino has no authority to grant the use of a town department’s name or moniker to any private corporation no matter how noble their intent may be. It is incidents like this that clearly demonstrate that the decisions he makes in his official capacity are designed to help the success of his private business, a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D and E, as stated above.

On or about August 20, 2008, Mr. Consentino authorized the formation of his private corporation with the business address of 27 Academy Ave, Atkinson, P.O. Box 321, both of which are town owned properties. The postal box being rented by the town and the address being that of the police station. ( see attachment “A”)The selectmen never voted to authorize a private corporation to lease or otherwise use space in a town building. No rent has been collected for the use of these resources, nor has any declaration been made as to the amount of space used by this corporation. Further Mr. Consentino had no authority in either his capacity as police chief, nor as elderly affairs director to authorize the use of town owned assets by a private corporation, much less one he controls. This is a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D and E, as stated above.

The use of the official Town Report of the Town of Atkinson to plug a private corporation is a commercial advantage to that business amounting to the cost of mailing direct advertisement to all 2,976 homes in Atkinson, plus the extra 250 copies for availability in public places, not to mention the value of this mediums longevity as a document required to be preserved for eternity, as well as the “official” imprimatur given by the advertisements inclusion in an official document. This is a clear violation of the COI, section V., paragraph D and E, as stated above.

In fact the operations of Mr. Consentino’s private corporation are so intertwined with the operations of the elderly affairs dept, that his continued management of both can not possible proceed without constant and continued violations of the COI. As Mr. Consentino has a clear interest as the President of the APCF in its success, and insofar as its success is directly related to its fundraising ability, and as its fundraising activities are totally enmeshed in the Town of Atkinson elderly affairs depts. operations, it can and will be argued that every decision made by Mr. Consentino in his capacity as elderly affairs director is colored by it’s relation to the fortunes of his private corporation, the APCF.


Mr. Consentino through his multiple roles as both a dept. head within the Town of Atkinson, and as a private business executive whose operations are SOLELY tied to and enmeshed within the operations of the town department which he manages, have created not just the “perception of a conflict” as decried by both State law and the COI, but he has in fact violated nearly every prohibited conduct under the chapter, and can not continue to operate as both a public official and a private vendor without these conflicts increasing.

Anonymous said...

"Although I am not totally certain,I believe Mr. Hazlett is a retire Naval Lt. Cmdr."

After Pearl Harbour did the US Navy rebuild and pursue,,, or walk away?

Anonymous said...

Hardly an apt comparison...

Anonymous said...

Ethics and responsibility start on a personal level.

Anonymous said...

The success of the military is built on the basis of the ethics of the individual members.

The resignation of members of the Conflict of Interest Committee contributes to the overall loss of integrity of the town.

The Conflict of Interest Committee was elected by the voters to serve the best interests of the town.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Acciard appears to have his facts straight. He's certainly does his homework. What's Phil's explanation? I'd like to see it in writing.

Anonymous said...

We have a real problem when the Conflict of Interest Committee self-destructs due to political pressure.

Anonymous said...

I think it is a problem too! The selectmen should have turned the police donation account over to the trustees of the trust funds to manage. But Phil didnt want that and the board of Sapia, Childs and Sullivan weren't going to stand up to him.

Anonymous said...

I don't want my tax money paying for people to work for his vote buying scam!

Anonymous said...

We pay enough taxes for our people to do town work, he can hire his own staff, like every other non profit does.

Anonymous said...

"...Ethics of individual members..."?

Why is there not one recognition in the Petition that the APCF is a "Non-Profit" and not a "private corporation"--purely Mark's and the bloggers' fiction.

Who is the un-named "resident" in the petition? Where is their integrity as a co-accuser? Chicken or Conflict of Interest?

Integrity? From the Eagle Tribune, "...LaFrance declined to say whether she had ever filed complaints" yet does "not intend to recuse herself..."

Integrity? My a$$!

Anonymous said...

why not post all your complaints?
I can't hear you over the axe grinding noise your making.

Anonymous said...

To: April 9, 2010 12:15 PM

Maybe the Conflict of Interest Committee did not self-destruct due to political pressure--Maybe the resignations were to prevent the Committee from becoming a tool for those who threaten the town with self-serving petitions and lawsuits. Maybe it was an attempt to stop the madness. If it were going to bow to "political pressure" it would have found the petition "without merit" or ruled no conflict of interest. It did not...

Anonymous said...

Phil's at it AGAIN !!!

I just learned of a shabby tactic Phil is using to get away with his latest ethics violation. It's shameful and our cowardly selectmen whould show some backbone and do something about it.

Phil is going around town urging people to show up to support him at the next COI meeting to address the ethics complaint against him.

He's hoping a large crowd in his corner will sway the ethic committee from taking action against him and will influence their vote -- like jury tampering which is a felony.

He's using a letter and also word of mouth to spread his usual scare tactics.

The scare tactic -- lie-- he's using is that if he's found guilty it will result in ALL organizations in town not being allowed to use any town buildings for their meetings and activities: including the boy and girl scouts, cub scouts and brownies, the veterans club, the Friends of the Library, the Atkinson Historical Society, etc. All of these organizatioons, plus many others use and meet in town owned buildings.

Lying Phil is spreading the word that if he's found guilty, it will basically destroy and shut down all of these town organizations who supposedly will not be allowed the continued use of town buildings for their meetings and activities.

I can't believe how low, despicable and contemptable Phil's lying tactics are.

What type of low-life tries to gather support for his next ethics appearance by spreading lies -- the falsehood that scouting in Atkinson will be over if he's convicted or that the Atkinson Historical Society will no longer be able to meet in Kimball House, or the Friends of the Library no longer able to meet in the library to plan and carry out their activities.

Anyone who has a copy of Phil's circulating lying scare letter should publicize it and its exact contents before turning it into the selectmen who will then wink and look the other way.

Anonymous said... think...that all of this got started when Mark mischaracterized the APCF in the Petition...and now Ms. LaFrance will not fess up to all of her complaints to the BOS and about a confict of interest and LIE ALERT! I bet she even runs the Blog!

Anonymous said...

Funny to watch the town bullies when there backs are up against the wall. They try to divert attention from the real problem Gumba Consentino by attacking members of the conflict of interest committee. Already they figured out how to disable the committe by crass and obstructionist polical pressure.

But none of this is going to work cause they made such a huge mess that it can only be cleaned up by the courts.

Congrats, Atkinson slimeball bullies. Do you hear the laughter of your coworkers, lawyers and all of New Hampshire?

Poor You. Just a victim caught with your hand in the town cookie jar and you can't get your hand out because you are too stupid Or greedy to let go of the cookie!

Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Anonymous said...

Honestly...does the last post make any sense? I have reread it three times...maybe I am not stupid enough to find the point in it

Anonymous said...

If you don't get the prior post you are a moron plus stupid as a bag of hammers.

Anonymous said...

it seems to me that the real bullie might just be mark. who cares that the non profit meet was held at the pd. it is the same as throwing the historical soc out of their buliding as far as i can see.
and that bulldog joyce makes a nice face of the political change some are hell bent on forcing us to accept. its kinda like the change that obama has brought us.
be more careful of the devil you don't know!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hammer away...according to national statistics (and Atkinson demographics), odds are 99% that I pull down more than you...I can easily live with that, in my ignorance. I made more in the time you took to write your post--than you likely made in a hour. So bully away! Life is so unfair...isn't it!

Anonymous said...

Last post was in response to 2:18

MAcciard said...

To 12:23pm;

It IS a private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary, and Shepard's Corporation Law Review defines a "private corporation or company" as one that is neither government owned nor are shares publicly traded.

In APCF's case it is a non profit that the IRS has granted it's 501(c)3 status to, but it is STILL a private corporation. I purposely chose that term for my petition so that the committee would understand that I am not questioning the APCF, it's non-profit status, nor it tax status. I had hoped that the committee would instead focus on the conflicts enumerated. Of course I probably should have considered this committee's track record in enforcing the ordinance, perhaps I was expecting too much.

MAcciard said...

To 2:13pm;

I don't know what "meet" you are talking about.

My complaint is about the taxpayers paying for dispatchers, computers, paper, ink, toner, time, premises, etc. to do police work, and our chief using those taxpayer funded items to fund his business.

Also there is the fact that this new business does not subsidize the elderly affairs budget the wy that the "police donation acct." did when the town owned it. Those items that USED to be paid out of the "donation acct." are now in the budget. So to be honest, up until this recent donation for the Subaru, I have no idea were the money they fundraise goes, nor do I care, it is not my business.

But remember, "equal treatment under the law" means that if the town allows one non profit corporation to use that list for marketing and fundraising, and pays town employees to work for that business, it will be hard pressed to refuse the same treatment to any other non profit corporation that requests the same benefit.

Think about that for a moment.

Anonymous said...


CONSENTINO is your problem. Retirement is NOT an option. Get RIDE of the problem. Enough is enough already. Don't go down with him.


Anonymous said...


Take that TIN badge OFF that TIN man's CHEST NOW!


Anonymous said...


Send jody packing with him.


Anonymous said...

WOW!!! Just got a three phone calls in the last hour. Phil must be burning up the phone lines today. The new spin is that Acciards complaint will stop ALL other non government groups from using town buildings! They are claiming that the Boy Scouts won't be able to use the fire station, friends of the library wont be able to use the library, garden club won's be able to use the town hall, etc.

MAcciard said...

To 3:56pm;

Not true! My complaint is about using town employees and equipment and proprietary information under the chief's control for his own business, that's all.

I don't care that the Address of the APCF is the police station, or wouldn't if it were not being marketed as "the same police donation account, under a new name". I what it's address is, I care that all the things that a non profit corporation normally pays for to operate it's business is being paid for by the taxpayers of Atkinson, without either their consent or knowledge, and it is wrong, and probably illegal, but either way, it CLEARLY violates the Town Code of Ethics Ordinance.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny that Philly cant ever talk about the specifics of a complaint, he has to make up some far flung argument to focus on.

Anonymous said...


You are still missing the point. The APCF is not a "private business" it is a CHARITY, and its Board does not have an "interest" as specificed in the COI Ordinance. No "interest" "Conflict of Interest."

By the way, why have you never identified the "resident" mentioned in your petition? Could it be that she would have to recuse herself? Shouldn't Phil be able to "face his accuser" as guaranteed in our Constitution?

As Shakespeare said "Much ado about nothing..."

Anonymous said...

Ohhhhh....did Mommie put sour milk in your baby bottle.

Yes it IS a business but run like a joke.

He did everything he could to avoid his day in court before the Conflict of Interest Committee, now didn't he? And the BOS helped him all the way by not doing their job.

He should Face up, admit the truth, then resign.

Anonymous said...

All 501(c)(3) charities are PRIVATE BUSINESSES.



MAcciard said...

To 5:27pm;

The complaint is clear;

The chief has an interest in the running of the elderly affairs dept. as defined by the COI ordinance.

The Chief DOES have an interest in the running of the APCF as he is it's president.

Legally it IS a "private corporation" AND a "charity". As a private charity it is one without disclosure or oversight, but that is not an issue here, the issue is that the President of this corporation uses the information gleaned through his town job(director of elderly affairs) to fund raise and market the corporation. That is a conflict. I make no assertions of the conduct of the charity or how it's money is spent, because I don't know. and neither do you. Nor do I care.

As for the resident who saw the dispatcher working for the charity, I don't need to know who it is, the Dispatcher told me personally, and I quote; "we don't just do police work in here, we do clerical work too. Someone saw something that they shouldn't have and complained about it, and the chief had this film put up so that it won't happen again."

Then the chief admitted it at deliberative session and said it was taken care of with the $15.24 check the charity paid the town for her services. What about all the other times she has done work for the charity? or all the times she will continue to? That reflective film is tantamount to an admission that it will continue, otherwise the film would not be necessary.

Anonymous said...

I'll tell ya. Come not between the dragon and his wrath. I own Atkinson. Its mine. How dare you victimize me! Saying my private business can't use town employees, computers, printers, cars.

I will be merciful. I will say nothing but them conflict of Interest whack-jobs want to throw the historical soc out of their building and steal girl scout cookies and spit em onto a dung heap and write "little punk" on the cub scout caps and burn the flag on the 4th of July, and, and, and.....

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, but I've watched this show for years now, and every time I have seen Acard make a complaint about something Phil does he has been right. Every time! Every time he has his facts right, and Phil never says anything about the issues, instead he smears Acard.

I am sick of it, He was bully 30 years ago when that Peak guy complained, and he is still a bully now. How does a guy with this short a fuse, get a badge and a gun?

Anonymous said...

Such a shame that the complainer is beating up our town again. It's all about nothing. How many times must a person lose in court, or in the Conflict Committee. Such a shame for you the complainer, the loser with a vendeta. Hal

Atkinson-Factor said...

Just posted the article from the tribune on the Factor.
Unbelievable! This group in our government is out of control.

MAcciard said...

To 11:54;

That's Funny! It is your buddy that loses in Court. The ethics complaint I filed 5 years ago when he voted on police matters as a selectman, he agreed to settle in the court to avoid a trial. Then he promptly ignored it and was found in Contempt of Court.

Anonymous said...

Remember this is all about $15.24, that has already been reimbursed, and about playing games with words to make a non-profit appear as a for-profit private corporation. Is this all it is really about--or is about continually baiting people into doing something they can be sued for?

Why is there such an interest in the APCF, and little or none in the other non-profits in town: Fire Department, Library, Family Mediation Center...? Are they next? Or this just another way to "Get the Chief?"

Anonymous said...

No, this is not about 15 bucks. Everybody knows it and laughs.

Everyone wishes you could reform yourself somehow.

Undermining the conflict of interest committee was a huge error. The likes of which you do not yet comprehend.

Serious political capital is lost and you continue to lose yor base by rumor moungoring.

The damage you have done to your standing in the community is severe.

By a timely resignation you can prevent the trauma that will fall on the town and Board of Selectmen.

Chief. There are a lot of ways to "survive". And if you give up this conflict of interest, you might "survive" by doing some good works with the few years you have left.

It'ts like floating down a river. You can fight against the current and hit all the boulders. Or you can not resist the current and flow around the boulders.

The time has come.

You know what is right.

Anonymous said...

Phil has always done the opposite of "what is right" for years and years etc. It's who he is.

MAcciard said...

To 8:36am;

You are wrong. It is not about $15.24 that has already been reimbursed.

It is about using people/equipment being paid by taxes to work for a business.

And the difference to the other non profits in town is that NONE of them is controlled by a dept. head who uses his town equipment and employees to work for his non profit.

If I were head of Elderly Affairs, first I would have encouraged the selectmen to turn the donation acct. over to the trustees, not started my own private charity corporation and run it with dept. personnel. Second; If a private charity were established to replace the old donation acct. I would not have anything to do with the running of it because of the conflict. But that's just me.

The best example I can give was when Vic Richards died. I went to Fleet Bank and established an open trust fund for people here and in Frye Island to donate to to benefit his family. I made the initial $200.00 donation to get it started, and I set it up with his wife as trustee. I had absolutely no authority over it at all. I announced it at a selectmen meeting, and had them publicize it, but I was never an officer or trustee because I was chairing the budget committee, and I felt it would be inappropriate. Even though it would have been legal to do, I felt it would give the appearance of impropriety, and that is why I did it that way.

This is a clear conflict, don't take my word for it, read the Ordinance on the Town website. But it doesn't matter now that Mr. Hazlett and Sapia resigned.

MAcciard said...

By the way; I filed two COI complaints against the chief in the past.

1.) When he voted as a selectman to approve his request as police chief to withdraw money form the donation account.

RESULT: After a year of bashing me at public meetings and claiming he did nothing wrong, he settled to avoid trial. He then violated the Court Order and was held in Contempt of Court. He didn't like that and appealed to the Supreme COurt, and they dismissed him for lack of standing, basically they told him to go away.

2.) When he pocketed $1,300.00 "union benefit" without any of the other selectmen's knowledge, even though the union contract explicitly stated the chief is prohibited from the provisions of the contract.

RESULT: Once again the COI committee found nothing wrong, and I was too sick of fighting to appeal it to Court. He got away with that one.

I also have filed two against Fred Childs for voting as a selectman on pay raises for town employees because he WAS one and would directly benefit.

All I want is my town government to be ethical, is that too much to ask?

Anonymous said...


I would not use your name and ethical in the same sentence.

Your vendetta with Phil is personal and rooted in long ago confrontation that you have carried a grudge over for years.

You, and your buddies, attack Phil from multiple directions, at once, but do not list them all in one place so that people cannot see what you are really up to.

You carefully word your petitions so that they appear to be reasonable, but in fact are just a subtrefuge. Calling a charity strictly a business, is just so you can take a swipe at Phil. He does not make any profit from the APCF. Call it what you want--it is still not a business in the sense that the COI Ordinance is meant to address.

You refer to a "resident" in your petition, but will not name them, because they would have to recuse themselves, and they won't admit it either, because they know it is a COI, too.

Ethics works both ways. Stop "calling the kettle black." It rings too hollow.

Your ethics are no better than those you criticize and attack.

Years from now, people will remember the good that the APCF did, because that is what lasts. They will not remember what you did--even if you win. Good is what people will remember--not the attack dogs, that whether they were right or wrong, still did the only thing they know--attack.

Is the Chief perfect? No--but then neither are those who fight him. Does his good outweigh his bad? Yes. Does yours?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

Atkinson-Factor said...

Mark has always done the right thing. Period. If anything, Mark should be thanked for his efforts to bring the chief's wrongdoings to light. Alot of people would love to do what Mark has done, but, but most have not done anything because they don't want the headache's.
Vendeta? No, it's called "Doing the right thing". This country needs more people like Mark these days.

MAcciard said...

To 1:50pm;

You are entitled to your opinion wrong as it may be. Yes the APCF is a charity, does that mean that town employees paid to be doing police work should be working for it? If so would you also have them do clerical work for the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, Red Cross, CNHT, or any number of other worthy charities that exist? Or how about the non-profit that I founded to support NH's only special needs competitive cheerleading team? They are National Champions, and the team has a number of girls from Atkinson on the team, surely that too is worthy of taxpayer funded equipment and staff.

The fact is that nowhere else exists a situation where the head of a dept. can direct his taxpayer paid town employees to do work using town owned equipment for the company he is president of, or do its fundraising from the elderly affairs client list? it doesn't matter whether it is; for profit, non profit, with or without 501(c)3 status. It is a conflict. Would you allow me to do that, were situations reversed? Does the fire chief call up people whose fires they put out to ask for donations?

You wouldn't have to because I would recognize the contradiction and not place myself in that position.

As to the "resident" who saw the dispatcher working for the charity, I have already said I am not sure who that is, the dispatcher never told me. What she DID tell me is in the petition. And that was what made me ask that of him at deliberative session where he admitted it.

You claim that I have a vendetta against the chief, what do you base that upon?

I have filed 2 COI petitions against him and appealed one of those to Court, AND WON!

I recused myself from voting on police matters for 2 years on budget even though legally I did not have to, to avoid the "perception of conflict".

I only filed suit against the town after he did all of the following and the selectmen refused to stop him despite numerous non public requests by me to do so;

being followed through town by him a number of times,

having my vehicles personally inspected by him 13 times in one year,

getting my car vandalized,

my home vandalized,

getting verbally threatened by him,

getting threatened with legal actions on official stationary by him for two articles on this blog that I didn't even write,

having him sue me personally, claiming he was going to own my home and business, for "slander", only to drop the case two weeks before we went to Court.

and after having him launch an expensive and time consuming investigation using the resources of the police dept into me and my business.

He pulled the carfax on my work van back 10 years,

he pulled the dmv on it,

he called all the previous owners of my work van, and even visited the last one in Salisbury, MA. trying to build a case against me.

MAcciard said...

That entire time I had done nothing wrong, and there was no "official" investigation, just the chief abusing his authority.

he called customers and suppliers of mine and told them I was under investigation by the police dept.

9 diatribes on camera in selectmen meetings.

having him illegally disclose my driving history on camera in a meeting, he even made up offenses that he said he saw, "but never ticketed me for", is that likely given all the tickets for things like "unattended vehicle"?

You claim, as the chief has done that I have a vendetta, but the two complaints(three if you include the current one) all happened and violated the ordinance. They are far more egregious that the COI complaint he filed against Barbara Stewart for simply signing the town employee pay vouchers, which happened to include Teddy's.

I filed two complaints. Appealed one to court, won, asked the selectmen to stop his harrassment of me and my family, and finally when no other solution was left open to me to stop it all filed suit. Now tell me honestly, what would YOU have done?

by the way, What long ago confrontation? All of this started with a simple ethics complaint. Do you think it is ok for a selectmen who is a dept. head to vote on his own depts. matters? I know the chief likes to tell people it is all because he gave me a traffic ticket 10 years ago but that is just another lie, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

After reading this. My position against Consentino is hardened. He must go. Now!

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:27, what about "due process?" If one side of the argument makes you "hard," what would both sides do?

Anonymous said...

Funny. Mark claims he has no vendetta against Phil Consentino and then lists a series of reasons he does (so large, it takes two posts to complete). Honestly, I feel like the Hatfields and McCoys are making Atkinson the laughingstock of NH.

The article submission states: "...and it centers around the same person as always, and some of the same complaints." What it leaves out is the same complaint is from the SAME person.

Mark, you complain about our taxes and schools. You complain about our taxes and Elderly Affairs. You just complain and complain and complain...yawn.

Anonymous said...


If the childish, often baseless, yellow journalism on this blog isn't a vendetta what is it? Classics like "Take that TIN badge OFF that TIN man's CHEST NOW!" and "Ohhhhh....did Mommie put sour milk in your baby bottle." Come on!

32 Complaints to the AGO from a single individual not a vendetta?

Calls for Phil's head without due process?

I guess I don't know what a vendetta is!

At least your obsession in coherent--more than I can say for the other whack jobs!

MAcciard said...

To 5:55pm, I said none of those things, sorry.

To 5:53pm; I did not state any reasons for a "vendetta", I explained why I filed the suit. You obviously missed the point that the man you are defending, the chief did all of those things in response to two COI complaints one ruled correct by a Court, and the other about pocketing money in contravention of a contract.

As to the complaining; My philosophy is simple; TRHS is my alma mater, I got a great education there. I would LOVE for our children to get the same quality of education there but they can't, in spite of the $14,500/yr they charge. I also believe the public officials need to go above and beyond to be above reproach. You don't have illegal public budget hearings. You don't put yourself in conflicts, You don't put your own needs before those of the community, and you should not be pressured, investigated, harrassed, demeaned by your government simply for speaking your mind.

Maybe you can answer me this;

Whenever someone files a complaint against the chief, ANYONE, be it Me, the Grants, Brian Kaye, Leon Artus, Lt. Rick Daniels, Officer Micheal Rivera, Officer Gary Lorden, Dale Childs, Wayne Peak, The Union, why is it that the facts of the complaint are NEVER discussed, instead it is shoot the messenger time in Atkinson?

Anonymous said...

I dont get it, if Phil really didnt do anything wrong, why doesnt he just show the committee that he didnt break the law. Why does he have to slam acciard, and bully a committee member?

I mean if he really is innocent cant he just show it? With all the intimidation it doesnt look good for him

Anonymous said...

Town "officials" call their citizens "whack-jobs" to slander and defame them with alarming regularity and breath. It is obvious to the educated observer that there are entrenced problem personalities (Department Heads and Committee Chairman). Deep seated psychotic behavior is on rampant display when the Atkinson Board of Selectmen conspire with an unqualified and disturbed official to Render ineffective a voter mandated conflict of interest committee before they can hear the complaint issued against the same.

--Just a Psychologist's opinion.

Anonymous said...

Just a Psychologist's opinion,

Perhaps you should see a colleague for your paranoia. What makes you think that those who post here and call some of you "whack jobs" are town officials? As difficult as it may be for you believe, there are average citizens here who do not swallow the vitriol against Atkinson hook, line, and sinker. Get help.

Just an average citizen's opinion.

Anonymous said...

A few think "Atkinson" is their personal property. Atkinson and everything the town owns, they also own.

The courts need to step in when a few are milking a town day and night.

Please bring hand cuffs.

Anonymous said...

why is it whenever phil does something boneheaded, we cant just agree that once again he did something bone headed, slap him on the wrist for the 50th time, and move on?
Why do we always have to demean the person who shows us what he did, and we never talk about what he did?
This guy is right, if we let town employees work on town time for a business that doesn'r belong to the town, then what do we do when the next charity wants them to work for it?

Anonymous said...

If phils charity was as pure as the wind driven snow, he would prove it, and this guy would look like a jerk.

But when he goes after the guy instead of proving his skirts clean, it makes me wonder what he has to hide

Anonymous said...

Joyce Lafrance said:

I did not violate the CoI Ordinance and did not recuse myself for this reason. As I told the committee, I saw PD personnel misusing Town Assets. The BOS told me that Consentino made restitution, that it only happened once, and that it was a 'non-issue' with them. If it is a non-issue for Cunningham who performed the action, for Consentino who instructed her and gains from this, and for the BOS who oversee all of them, it is certainly a non-issue for me, one of many people who witnessed the misuse of taxpayer assets. One cannot expect me to recuse myself for witnessing an act that has been deemed to be a non-issue. It is not even logical to suggest such a thing.

I too was so interested in hearing who the dispatcher was going to name as the mysterious resident. I still want to know who it was. Did it occur to anyone else that she was doing this in the company of law enforcement officers and not one of them has come forward? Maybe it was one of them. It should have been one of them.

I have been harassed by a few members of the PD since this happened last year and the harassment continues. They are hell bent on blaming me for getting caught. Blame yourself for not knowing the difference between right and wrong.

I do not believe the dismembered CIC will be able to fairly and professionally evaluate the complaint at hand because no one in their right mind would volunteer to serve on this committee unless they were going to swing one way.

I refuse to waste my time and effort on this and I have resigned. Not even those with the best of intentions want to stand up to this corruption.

Anonymous said...

If the taxpayers are going to pay his charity's expenses then the taxpayers have a right to inspect the books to see what they are getting for their money. If it is as pure as Phil says, he should have no problem with that!

Anonymous said...

CON-sentino will declare a victory with Ms. LaFrance's resignation. Once again the BULLY will say he wins, but this is just another example of how he forces someone out of office. No wonder no one was to volenteer for ANY position in town.

Selectmen are in BED with CON-sentino if they do not put a stop to his corruption. If they don't, they are as corrupt as he is.


Anonymous said...

I just have one question.

1) When phone rings at the police station / elderly transport the person answers. Are they not paid by the town?

Its the same phone number. 4 or 5 times a day this happens

MAcciard said...

of course they are, those are both town depts. and the selectmen decided for whatever reason to use the dispatch center for both, what is your point?

Anonymous said...

Hey, joyce lafrance, climb down off the cross. Stop trying to martyr yourself at the altar of the Blog.

Anonymous said...

really? did she say anything that isnt true?

Anonymous said...

If she actually saw the dispatcher working for Phils charity, then he is an idiot! On the committee she would have to remain neutral. Off the committee she is free to be a witness. His bullying may backfire on him!

Anonymous said...

I dont like any body with a badge and a gun bullying anybody, cause the time might come when I piss him off and he starts bullying me.

Anonymous said...

The only one on a cross is St. Phil.

Poor me, boo hoo, I am as pure as the wind driven snow. Everyone is picking on me. Everyone hates me, they have a vendetta against me. I didn't do it, I didn't do that either...or the other things. None of them, not me.

Anonymous said...

Polito, Sapia, Bennet, Childs, Killiam, Consentino.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, Phil demanded this woman step off the board because she witnessed him breaking the law, but he thought it was ok for Jack to sit there even though they are both in a lawsuit together?

This isnt about her being biased, this is about him having friends to make this go away just like always!

Anonymous said...

It's never about what he did, always about who is complaining. I'd rather here him defend what he did, maybe then I could respect him.

Anonymous said...

Phil has always had a short fuse, and way back in the 80's was using the Pd to go after his critics. Why do you think has doesn't have that many today? Most of us have learned.

Anonymous said...

The CIC is supposed to protect the Town when officials cross the line. Well I guess the officials proved that they'll do whatever they please and rest of them will help them and give them permission.

Anonymous said...

CIC members resigned! Oh My God! They had a responsibility to act on ethics/interest complaints --the job they were elected to do by voters. What was Sapia doing sitting there when he was compromised? Oh My God! Ethics? --not. What is going on here in this town?

CIC members cave in to bullies and resign their responsibility to defend and protect voters and their community from abuse???

Oh My God!

CIC Chairman Hanslett owes a written explanation to us voters plus a court certified statement of what happened and who intimidated committee members that they resigned out of FEAR!

Hiding THE TRUTH from the voters and the courts earns a lifetime ethics grade of F minus.

What will Hanslett say on the witness stand? Does he know the difference between right and wrong? Under oath, will he tell the truth about the intimidation and corruption of justice?

Jon DiVito said...

It has been a year since I sent emails to the Chief showing that the person that accused me of a crime over 20 years ago lied. Still no apology from Chief Consentino! His investigation of 5 hours led to my arrest... SHODDY police work at best! Thanks Chief!

MAcciard said...

Jon, What did you expect from someone with no formal law enforcement training?

But, yes the Honorable thing to do would be to apologize. Anyone can forgive an honest mistake, if the person apologized for it.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it wasn't an honest mistake. Maybe it was just plain incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Honest mistake? Perhaps CON-sentino WANTED to give Mr. DiVito a record. Perhaps he RAILROADED Jon. Perhaps he had a grudge against Jon's family and found a way to get even.

Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.


Anonymous said...

sue or stfu

Anonymous said...

anonymous April 14, 2010 9:36 AM made it clear the option you are forced to take in town.

You said, "sue or stfu"


People are forced to sue and the powers that be know most people can't afford it, bleed them dry until they cry uncle.

Town officials don't pay legal fees out of their own pocket. They could give a crap about cost cause they have liability insurance paid by residents. Taxpayers bear the burden. Taxpayers lose. What a sick bunch of psychos led by the lead psycho of them all. What kind of mentally deranged individuals think this is logical way to run town. Soon we'll have 3selectmen and a police chief and no one else but they'll be thinking everyone else is screwed up but them.

Have you looked around and wondered why nobody is volunteering for any town positions or committees? People can't resign fast enough. The lack of volunteerism is a powerful statement but you don't get it or see it.

I'd rather volunteer to help boy scouts or coach baseball or anything else. Jokes on you, fools. You created the mess. Nobody else.

Anonymous said...

Then there was three or should I say 4 running this town. Three selectment and a "Bully with a Badge" police chief running this town. No volunteers for committees because they run them out of town if they don't line up with the other four.

Great town Atkinson with four people runnning it and the CON-sentino as the "Don". Corruption at its best.

How do you like it so far taxpayers?

It doesn't matter if It's Polito, Sapia, Sullivan, and Childs or Bennett, Friel and Childs as selectmen, the CON-sentino pulls all of their strings.

Your vote counts, so vote them out and cut CON-sentino's "Snake Head" off.

Corruption is corruption no matter who's name is on it as long as CON-sentino is around. HE IS THE PROBLEM.