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, January 10, 2011

Regionalized Policing. Atkinson is perfect for it.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

PLEASE POST THIS ARTICLE:

Regionalized Policing. Atkinson is perfect for it.

All over the country towns are banding together to realize the cost savings by eliminating redundant overhead costs associated with redundant facilities, insurance, utilities, police cars and computers. Atkinson could outsource its police department and save half of its police budget which if tallied accurately is now close to $1 Million. Instant savings of $500K per year which is $5 Million over 10 years.

How did such a small town grow such a large PD budget with all its unnecessary and redundant assets, cars and don't forget the detective, oh yes how many crimes solved by that unnecessary position, think about it really. Too bad we have no crime stats to base the need for so much expense. The demand simply doesn't exist. We have 12 police cars? Really? WHY? And don't quote me the 1 police officer per x number of residents BS, that formula works for towns like Derry or Salem where they have crime and commercial districts. Our police costs are twice what they were less than 10 years ago. What will they be in another 10 years? And what happens when they push for a new police department. The current PD building is insufficient so taxpayers better get ready for a new $1 Million police facility. Bend over. We have to create a full time chief position cause a nice guy is involved and he'll need a nice new building.

People I have bills to pay and am sorry the current arrangement is driving my taxes up and having a different colored police car driving around would make zero difference.

We could outsource to Plaistow or Salem since we only need 3, 8 hour shifts covered (1 shift 24/7). No more extra salaries or insurances or lawsuits or vehicle maintenance or free gas and cars to the privileged few which happens NOWHERE ELSE. And with all of the workforce administration eliminated we free up the town hall personel to do real work for us taxpayers. No more personnel complaints. No more dealing with payroll and benefits of all the extra unnecessary staff. It would be like a vacation working at Town Hall.

I's the law of supply and demand. We have an oversupply of a police department for small amount of criminal demand. We cut a deal with say Plaistow to keep the current full timers for at least one year, guaranteed and after that the chips fall where they may. We sell all the police dept assets and raise like $400,000 to pay down the tax rate or pay towards the library bond.

WE DON'T NEED THIS BLOATED Dept. Someone please prove to me with facts we need it. PROVE IT I DARE YOU! It is the 21st century. As long as we have 24 hour coverage, that's all we need. I know the notion of not having a PD is foreign to everyone. Do some research for yourself. Regional policing is common practice. Imagine for a moment the reverse was true where we had regional policing today and someone proposed establishing a police dept with a building and cars and computers etc. It would NEVER pass the voters because it would be to costly! You know I'm right.

With the savings, we hire a part time person to run Elderly Affairs and heck we can increase the EA budget.

AND with the $500K per year savings we can pay off the library bond in 3 years and save another few hundred thousand.

The bloated PD is so much overkill its beyond ridiculous. When you have to move line items out of your budget like insurance to hide the bloatedness of your budget, the writing's on the wall.

We live in Mayberry RFD. There's no crime here. Why are we paying like its Haverhill?

Regionalized policing. We save a fortune and have the lowest tax rate in the state. Love the idea. The 21st century is coming soon to Atkinson.

January 10, 2011 5:55 PM

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Now why do you think Plaistow or Salem would take over that hell-hole you call a Police Department?? I believe both of their Police Chiefs are far brighter than that!

Anonymous said...

Glad to see the "Moderator" is on the job. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. So, to the person posting this Article, you are running for Selectman I presume. That's how to get your agenda accomplished. Anything less is just noise level hogwash. Go for it.

Anonymous said...

This has been discussed for years, and believe it or not, it is not such a stretch. Currently Plaistow provides our police dispatch for over 70% of the time.

Anonymous said...

Oh my! When the CON-man sees this article he's going to be bullsh-t! He'll be running around town trying to protect his turf with any lie he can come up with to protect his budget. I hear he wants another new car to put in his used car lot that will cost the taxpayers even more money. Like we need another car.

I agree with getting rid of this police dept. We deserve more for less.

The Other New Guy said...

Interesting article and certainly food for thought. I, for one, am not for outsourcing to a neighboring town. I live in Atkinson and prefer to have a PD specific to my town. It will take some time, but the day will come where things will change with the PD. Chief Consentino cannot run the department forever and he will have to retire at some point. Change is natural and inevitable.

When it happens, I hope some of the people here, who obviously care about our town, will feel comfortable enough to participate more fully in our government.

InterestedObserver said...

Is it right that the people should fear their chief law enforcement officer?

Is it right that those who merely question his actions or policies, should legitimately have to fear retribution?

Is it right that this retribution has played itself out on the pages of newspapers for over 30 years, without the selectmen ever taking any action at all?

Anonymous said...

An interesting premise.

I'd ask the original author to take this to the next step. It sounds like a concept worth exploring. Though I'd challenge some assumptions; like only needing 24x7 patrol coverage... there are instances of burglary and the like in town requiring some investigative staff.

You've hypothesized on the savings and workability of such a plan, can you tell us of similar towns where it has been done? And can you validate that significant savings were achieved while maintaining acceptable levels of service?

Anonymous said...

"... there are instances of burglary and the like in town requiring some investigative staff."

There are, but they are not all being handled as it is. One has to be on thier good side to get them to respond to legitimate problems, even then, the cops cannot act unless they get permission from the Chief. It's ridiculous to have the residents pay for selective enforcement of the law just to feed someones big ego and power hunger.

Right now, we have an ineffective and corrupt system in place. The proposed solution assumes another town could manage us better when the real problem is the mismangement. Better management would reduce costs, eliminate waste, be unbiased and professional. The solution lies in replacing the department head.

Anonymous said...

The selectmen don't even have the balls to write him up when he threatens people on TV, they will never replace him. Even though his appointment as cheif ran out in 1999! They havent even reappointed him.

Anonymous said...

We have crime in the town but it's not reported to the public and they don't do anything when they are called.

Anonymous said...

I view the article as a business case similar to the reasons one company acquires another. Its about reducing cost and getting the same service for less. No brainer of the year.

Budget committee should do the research not the citizens.

Anonymous said...

Finally! So many have been waiting for a change in our Town. It looks as though a change could be happening this year.

This change of command could go on for years and years. I'm sorry but we don't have the time to wait for this to happen. It has been too long already.

We are being forced in to makeing these changes by a terrible economy.It has made a lot of people sit up and take notice. Let's call it what it is. Depression.

No longer can we afford to have our so called leaders do as they please.

I hope there is some one out there who is willing to try.

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 11, 2011 11:59 AM

You say we have crime but the police aren't reporting it. If true, why keep a dept that's not doing its job? Most people get fired when they don't do their job.

Saving hundreds of thousands is tough to find these days. I need a cut in my taxes.

Anonymous said...

http://www.yapd.org/

http://www.sarpd.com/

http://www.mcrpd.org/

http://www.cdblaw.com/CMSADMIN/document/files/Regionalizing%20Police%20Services.pdf

Just some reading for you all

Anonymous said...

The time when the budget committee researched things left with Mark Accard.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should do some research of your own. The budget committee has no authority to make policy decisions. The budget committee can only set the budget. This kind of a change would need to be made by either the board of selectmen or the voters.

Anonymous said...

Excerpt from the article above

Despite numerous incentives for certain police departments to merge, most still maintain the historical patchwork of policing which has resulted in local government spending, on average, in excess of one-third of its general funds for such services.
Many advantages have been identified in support of consolidation or regionalization of police services. The Governor’s Center for Local Government Services advances that regionalization results in improvements in the uniformity and consistency of police enforcement, improvements in the coordination of law enforcement services, better distribution and deployment of police personnel, as well as reduced costs.1 Clearly, the elimination of servicing restrictions based simply on the location of municipal borders should result in the better use of police personnel. In addition, economies of scale may be achieved by reducing the total number of officers needed, the number of police vehicles and other equipment needed, as well as consolidation of departmental headquarters. Financial savings, if it can occur, however, is not the only positive consideration in the debate over regionalization. According to Police Chief Robert Amann, who supervises the Northern Regional Police Department in Allegheny County, advantages to police personnel and the community may also be achieved.
“A major benefit of regionalizing police services is having a better ability to train the officers generally, but also to train them in the specialized areas of police services. For example, accident reconstruction.”

Anonymous said...

Budget committee can do research.

Anonymous said...

It's the wrong time of year to be starting this movement, but we still need this.

Budgets are done, the town meeting looms...but I agree that it's a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Yes they can, but I would expect the budget committee to research things that are within their realm, such as the operating budget or warrants. Why would they get sidetracked on an issue they have no control over? This is a policy decision and that resides with the selectmen and the voters.

Anonymous said...

Sure and the policy decisions never seem to make it to the voters because the selectmen do not enforce the policy or promote changes or improvements.

Please don't say to advance a citizen warrant article, because we all know what happens when you do that...eventual arrest, denial of services, couter lawsuits when you fight for your rights....oh, and let's not forget, criminal mischief (NOT PROPERTY DAMAGE).

Anonymous said...

Good point. What I witness is legal and illegal retaliation against their own voters for bringing warrant articles that would improve the town. In my opinion democracy is dead in Atkinson but political thuggery does just fine thank you. One example is the taking apart of our own town ethics committee. If our own Conflict of Interest Committee is taken apart, what kind of town am I stuck in?

Anonymous said...

If this is an issue that you feel strongly about, then run for selectman. As far as the conflict of interest committee, they resigned on their own accord. The committee still exists and has one member. If running for selectman doesn't appeal to you, I believe there are 4 empty positions for conflict of interest that you could run for. If you want to make a positive change, get yourself on the ballot and get involved. Griping on a blog accomplishes nothing other than providing you a place to vent.

Anonymous said...

Just to help everyone out while they decide which position they want to run for, here's a list of open positions. Sign ups start on the 19th and run through the 28th.

Selectman-Three Years Vote for One

Road Agent-Two Years Vote for One

Cemetery Trustee-Three Years Vote for One

Conflict of Interest-Three Years Vote for Two

Conflict of Interest-Two Years Vote for One

Trustee of the Trust Fund-Three Years Vote for One

Budget Committee-Three Years Vote for Two

Library Trustee-Three Years Vote for One

Supervisor of the Checklist-One Year Vote for One

Anonymous said...

Before I run for the ethics committee would someone discuss WHY members the ethics committee abandoned the voters who elected them? That's pretty serious for an "ethics" committee.

Was it political thuggery that forced resignations? That shows to me anyone running for ethics or selectman will get attacked. Can Chairman Hanslitt come on here and tell why and how so many resigned?

I request a truthful reply.

With this big hush job I want to know before I throw my bonnet into the ring.

Anonymous said...

I think there was some internal fighting within the committee so they ended up resigning with the exception of one.

MAcciard said...

Actually what happened is that I filed a complaint regarding the intermingling of police dept. work and time, with the private non profit corporation run by the chief. Having police personnel on town taxpayer funded time working for a private corporation run by the dept. head was wrong.

It was at the first meeting to discuss this complaint, that Chaipman hazlett and Dick Smith had a private meeting before the meeting in the lobby of the town hall with the chief.

In the meeting chairman Hazlett announced that the complaint could not move forward because it was worded wrong. No one else on the committee had seen the complaint yet, and no one voted on this action. I complained about this procedure, and Chariman hazlett announced his resignation. I made an issue of Jack Sapia hearing the complaint as he was in a lawsuit with the chief. Both of them resigned leaving Dick Smith and Joyce LaFrance as the last two remaining members of the committee.

Chief tried to intimidate her into resigning by announcing that he had "a 32 page dossier on her" and that "she has a vendetta against me".

Anonymous said...

If Joyce did indeed file several complaints against the chief she should have recused herself as she could hardly be seen as impartial. Someone sitting on this committee really ought to not have any conflicts either via lawsuits or complaints against individuals they are supposed to be able to impartially judge. Hence the name of the committee. Your spin Mark is that Phil tried to get Joyce to resign. Perhaps he was trying to get her to recuse herself.

Anonymous said...

Joyce LaFrance said...

The Chief asked me to recuse myself because I complained against him and a couple members of the PD and I had just cause to do so.

The Chief knows I was also a witness to the dispather working on his fund while on duty, the Selectmen/TA told him about my non-public with them before I met with them.

So, why should I recuse myself for being a witness when there is nothing in the ordinance against it? It is not a conflict to be a witness per our ordinance.

Why should I recuse myself when Jack was still sitting in and he was in a lawsuit with the Chief, a clear violation of the ordinance?

Why should I recuse myself when Dick and Jim both met with the Selectmen, TA (and at least one other person not revealed in the meeting minutes)? They met as the CIC, without a CIC vote or committee prior knowledge, in a closed session...highly improper.

Jim asked me, and only me, if I could meet the juror standard. I responded, 'yes'. He did not ask one other member of the committee this question.

One cannot expect that I recuse myself for what may be perceived as having bias against a person, while they allow those that could be perceived as having biased toward a person, to remain acting.

Double standard...and I'm still on the committeee.

BTW, there's a new PO Box for petitions, it's 450. Please vote for the correction at town meeting in March.

Anonymous said...

Ah, your message is loud and clear Joyce. "Why should I hold myself to a higher standard when no one else does?" Got it. Integrity only when it's convenient.

Anonymous said...

Joyce LaFrance said...

not exactly Mr. Anonymous...why recuse myself when they voted to send the petition back before it was even recieved? What was the point?

Anonymous said...

You are correct on that account Joyce. No petition, nothing to recuse yourself from. However, your previous message seemed to argue that there was no reason to recuse yourself even if the petition did make it forward because others were at fault too. Not exactly arguing from a position of integrity. Almost like a little kid. "But mom, ALL the other kids are doing it."

Anonymous said...

Joyce LaFrance said...

I understand the interpretation but I did not mean it that way.

The petition was actually returned before the Chief's letter was given to the committee.

When the meeting convened, there were 4 members, no one had resigned or recused themselves and the petition had been returned.

I understand your questions but you might have asked me for clarification first. I'm quite sure it was not a good day for anyone in the room.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so how did you mean it? I'm having a difficult time seeing a different meaning when it was full of "Why should I when so and so didn't?"

Anonymous said...

Joyce LaFrance said ....

The board voted to return the petition before it was accepted for review.

The issues from the previous meeting, (the request for Jack to recuse himelf, Jim and Dick's meeting with BOS/counsel), were unfinished business. Within a day, two people resigned and the committee no longer had a quorum.

If you want to make something more of it, go for it. It seems to me that you're having a difficult time accepting the facts as they are.

Why is that? and why won't you post your name if you feel so strongly that you are ""right""?

Anonymous said...

You're deflecting. I asked you to explain what you meant by your post when you continuously stated "Why should I when..." This post brings into question your integrity. You asked for an opportunity to explain yourself and I have given you one. Care to answer or should we assume you're just an elected hack with an agenda?

Anonymous said...

I admire Ms. LaFrance for being willing to do her sworn duty. Finally, someone other than Mr. Acciard willing to hear the complaint knowing she could suffer the retaliation from our “bully” Police Chief and his friends. We should be giving her our debt of gratitude, not chastising her for her willingness to do her job. All the other members resigned in order to protect their beloved police chief. Especially the Chief’s Lackie Sapia.

The Cowards that resigned are the ones that should be chastised. Taking on the Crooked Chief of Police takes a lot of stamina. Good for Ms. LaFrance for being willing to hear the case.

Now let’s see if she gets her house painted or car vandalized by the Chief supporters. Let’s see if Mr. CON-sentino comes up with some trumped up charge to have Mr. Farrar arrest her on. Wouldn’t be the first time the CON-man has done it and I’m sure his lackie Farrar would LOVE to arrest Ms. LaFrance. Know what we mean Farrar?








from the Chief, I admire Ms. LaFrance for being willing to do her sworn duty. Finally someone all the other members resigned rather than suffeIf r retailation else standing up to the bully other than Mr. Acciard says a lot for Joyce. We should be giving her our debt of graditude, no chastising her for her work.

The Cowards that resigned are the ones that should be chasdised Taking on the Crooked Chief of Police takes a lot of stamina. Good of Ms. LaFrance for being willing to hear the case.

Now lets see if she gets her house painted or. car vandalized by the Chief supporters

Anonymous said...

I'm not chatising her for trying to do her job, I'm chastising her for her seeming lack of integrity. She is an elected official and should be held to the same standards. Her post brings implies that she lacks the integrity needed to do her job, especially being on the conflict of interest committee.

Anonymous said...

I have a question. Why did Smith and Haslett meet with the Board of Selectmen without all the other members of the ethics committee? Why a secret meeting of only two members of the ethics committee and not all the members?

Two members is not a quorum. What were they conspiring to do?

Smells to me.

Did I vote for the BOS to be members of the ethic committee? I don't remember doing that.

What I like about ethics member Lafrance-- She stands up for what is right when the going gets tough.

Anonymous said...

More deflections. She stands up for what is "right" when it fits her agenda. The victim can't be the judge, but she apparently thinks this is acceptable. She should resign if that is the case.

Anonymous said...

You keep saying Lafrance is deflecting but you don't say WHAT is being deflected. I don't follow you.

Whose the victim you talk about? I can't follow your disjointed opinions.

Do you know what you are talking about or is it just trash.

Anonymous said...

The victim is the town residents who pay their taxes!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

She's the "victim" because she has filled multiple complaints about the chief. How can a person in that position possibly argue that they should not have to recuse themselves? Therein lies the lack of integrity.

Anonymous said...

What are the other complaints?

Did the complaints have to do with the dispatcher doing work for the private charity on the town dime? Is that why you are pissed she is on the CIC?

I don't think being a witness is a conflict,,, or a lack of integrity.

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 12, 2011 4:59 PM & anon January 12, 2011 5:07 PM

Joyce has more integrity in her little finger than you do in your whole body. If you don't want the Chief held responsible for his illegal actions, come out and say so. Don't accuse Joyce of deflecting anything. Acciard is Spot On in his complaint. Not only should Joyce not resign, we need more people on the committee that will stand up to the CON-man's illegal behavior.

jmho

Anonymous said...

Ask Joyce. She's filed several complaints about the chief. While you say that a witness doesn't create a conflict, ask yourself this. Would a judge who was a witness to a crime sit and hear the same case or would he recuse himself? I think we all know the answer. Joyce apparently thinks she can hear the case when it's clear she has a bias. You know what else is clear? She's not fit for the position.

Anonymous said...

LOL. So anon @ 5:37, you think that someone who has a bias should be allowed to judge that person on the conflict of interest ocmmittee. What a bunch of hypocrits. Issues of integrity apparently only apply to those who aren't Acciard's lackeys. LOL.

Anonymous said...

But there was no case!

I hear that petition was returned without ever being heard!

Haslett returned it BEFORE it was ever received.

Anonymous said...

If it were a different case to what he witnessed, he can hear the case. Are you telling me that she would be hearing the same complaint she complained about? I don't think so. If it is a different complaint about the same person, put a stop to that person's illegal behavior. The CON-man has done crimes against every person in town. Every one of them should be able to hear what he has done now.

It shouldn't take a town to get rid of a corrupt police chief. If we had a few more honest public officials like Joyce, he would have been gone a long time ago.

Get off your high horse complaining about Joyce and turn your attention to the corruption the Chief represents. He is the biggest corrupt problem we have in this town. He pulls the selectmen's strings and you don't seem to have a problem with that. You probably voted for him when he ran for selectman. Now that was a conflict from the day he started to run.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter. She expressed the view that there was no need to recuse herself if there was one. She's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5:52, you're wrong. Once a judge has a bias against a person, that judge is not fit to hear the trial. You can try to spin the issue, aka deflect, but I am holding Joyce accountable for her lack of integrity in this matter. As to if I voted for Consentino, no I didn't. That was a conflict, especially when he voted on police or elderly affair matters. Someone who sits upon the conflict of interest committee should have a high level of integrity. Joyce has just demonstrated that she doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Polito was in the meeting with the CIC when all this transpired.

Why did he record the CIC committee members on his laptop?

(He had the NERVE to take pictures in a public meeting without a model release.)

With the evidence on his laptop and web cam,,, will he set the record straight?

Anonymous said...

I respectfully disagree. Everyone has an opionion about Phil Consentino. If they were not allowed to serve on a committee, we not only would not have a Conflict committe; we wouldn't be allowed to have any committees. We wouldn't have selectmen, budget, zba, planning board or any town Goverment at all. The man is a lightning rod of corruption.

Anonymous said...

I read the CIC ordinance and it is very specific. In a nutshell, a TOWN official would have to have a legal, financial, or family relationship that would automatically be considered a conflict of interest.

Anything else is subjective bull.

If you want to tighten the ordinance then write a warrant article and do it.

There is nothing in there that being a supporter or non-supporter or witness to a crime is a reason to recuse.

Anonymous said...

But it is. This is supposed to be a board of integrity but yet none has been displayed.

Anonymous said...

PUT CROSS HAIR,S ON ALL OF THEM

Anonymous said...

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"What you are doing is applying two sets of criteria to the parties instead of one."

Anonymous said...

I am considering running for CIC this year.

But I require a guarantee from the Board of Selectmen, in writing, or announced at town meeting, that there will be no secret meetings with members of the CIC without a quorum of its members.

I have self respect and will not serve, minus this guarantee.

Anonymous said...

That's something you should be demanding of your fellow committee members should you get elected. It's ridiculous to start demanding written guarantees from anyone. If you serve, you serve with integrity and for the right reasons, not because someone gave you some sort of guarantee. Life isn't that clean. That's why this committee exists right?

Macciard said...

12:33; funny you should raise the issue of complaints. I said nothing about that. But again, being a witness to something and reporting it to the authorities does not violate the juror standard.

However you seem not at all concerned that when I sent the committee a letter requesting the recusal of Jack Sapia as he was a co defendant in a lawsuit with the chief he told the committee that he was not involved in any litigation with the chief. That was a lie. But you seem to be comfortable with this.

You also seem to be comfortable with the chief law enforcement officer in town, using his dept. And it's resources to investigate his critic, and revealing is investigation at the meeting of a duly constituted board of inquiry charged with looking into his actions for the sole purpose of intimidating a member of said committee.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Mark, how you can simply jump to all those conclussions. Did you hurt yourself making such a leap? I focused on the post by Joyce since she interjected herself into the debate. I said nothing of my comfort level on ANY of the items you post. You too sir, are deflecting. When a person files multiple complaints against a person, that person is NOT in a position to declare their impartiality. Since you obviously can't debate the issue, you choose to speak to what I did not talk about.

Anonymous said...

The BOS must guarantee that they will not conspire with individual members of the CIC to meet in secret without a quorum. It is a matter of ethics and integrity. Either make that guarantee, not to repeat the same offense or resign.

While serious about serving.......not if the BOS is unwilling to guarantee integrity and ethical conduct regarding the CIC.

Talking to other elected members of the newly elected CIC is not a sufficient guarantee. Given the nature of the violation the BOS must offer surrity.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations. You managed to negate your supposed seriousness with your comments. Enjoy your time as a private citizen. I was actually thinking you might be serious about running. I was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Do I have this right?

1. LaFrance filed some complaints against the Chief.

2. Separate charges against the Chief were floated to go befoe the CIC but they were never formally placed before the CIC (maybe cuz of some back-room shenanigans involving some CIC members and BOS)?

3. Ms. LaFrance is now being challenged for not recusing herself from a hearing that never happened.

4. Ms. LaFrance is being criticised for what some feel she might have done had there been a hearing that never occurred.

5. Ms LaFrance is indentifying herself here as she explains her position; all the rest of us are anonymous.

Talk about people ill-qualified to sit in judgment of others....

Anonymous said...

No, you don't. She's being challenged because she didn't think she needed to recuse herself if there was one. Her reasoning of "well the others were wrong too" shows a lack of integrity. But since this is one of Mark's acolytes, everyone wants to put on their blinders. Apparently issues of integrity only apply to everyone else. Hypocrits.

Anonymous said...

Seems strange that getting close to election time, the Town wants Ms. LaFrance to resign. Wonder what board CON-MAN wants to stack with his people this year? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............let me get back to you on that. LOL

Anonymous said...

I don't see where she said "Her reasoning of "well the others were wrong too" shows a lack of integrity"" or even implied this. She talked about what was going on with each person. She has never showed bias and if you assume that she is biased, that is YOUR interpretation. It is your spin that she has no integrity based on your spin that she is biased. Why don't you deal with what actually happened and what she said?

Anonymous said...

Why isn't he questioning the lack of integrity of Jack, Jim and Dick, not to mention Phil for startinghtis mess.

These folks are violating the ordinance directly. Lets talk about this first and how we actually arrived at this point.

Let's talk about how Hazlet yelled at her in the meeting. He was out of line, especially to a woman.

Anonymous said...

Why did Smith and Hazlett meet with the board of selectmen in private?

Anonymous said...

I understand. When the CIC is put to sleep by having only PD boot lickers on it, the administration will be satisfied.

We have a selectman who worked for the PD and a TA who was one. What boots do they shine.

When the CIC is put to sleep, the complaints about the theft of town services will come to an end.

When the CIC is put to sleep the town will be better for it.

When the CIC is put to sleep the BOS won't have meetings to twist arms. Won't be necessary.

When the CIC is put to sleep Sapia can join cause lying and ethics are not concerns.

When the CIC is put to sleep Polito will no longer have to attend meetings. What ZBA chair Polito did to empower ZBA committee member Osborn won't matter.

When the CIC is put to sleep the town will be too and for a long long time. A sleeply little town where everyone is happy, rich and fat, where taxes are sky hi but that don't matter cause we got cars and jumped up salaries and more communication equipment on hog hill and an expanded town hall for our tax money to be better enjoyed and and....a town of Zombies with a dead Ethics Committee---Ain't it sweet? You gonna love Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

Scary.

They met with to get info about 501c3 charities. Nothing secret about that so it must have been an excuse to hide the real discussion. Hazlet said they needed policy infoormation from the town and he had a right to meet with them. Sapia said it was ok too....but it isn't.It's a violation of open meeting rules...
Of all the boards to do this, the two that should be on the up and up.

Anonymous said...

Wow Leon, you must have started drinking early on the 10th to come up with this pipedream of regional policing.


LEON ARTUS FOR SELECTMAN!!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHHA WHAT A JOKE!

Anonymous said...

What lawsuit is Consentino and Sapia in this time?

Anonymous said...

Nothing about dealing with a non town controlled charity is secret.

Anonymous said...

We live in Mayberry RFD. There's no crime here. Why are we paying like its Haverhill?

We're paying like it's Haverhill? Really. Haverhill's PD budget is 8.6 million or more than twice the town's operating budget. What nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Calm down!

I believe the gentleman meant that we are paying like Haverhill, comparitively speaking. We have a much smaller town but the costs are very high considering we have much less crime.

We do have crime but no one really knows what is going on here because it's kept a big secret.

Do we need this budget? Who knows for sure? I highly doubt it.

Anonymous said...

I am so tired of the posts that jump on every word and correct, control, criticize, and challenge every single word.

Take a pill!

MAcciard said...

To 8:41;

i am jumping to no conclusions at all;

YOU allege that she filed numerous complaints against the chief, Maybe so, I do not know, However I DO know that there was an improper if not illegal meeting between two members of the COI committee with the selectmen, followed by a meeting with these same two just before the initial meeting to discuss a complaint that had been filed. You express no dismay over any of this, yet you continue to judge Ms. LaFrance.

There is no provision in the Ordinance for the chair to act without the direction of the board, yet he did. There is no provision for the chair and Mr. Smith, after meeting with the chief to decide on their own that a complaint is incorrectly worded. Remember to this point they had only discussed the complaint with the chief, no investigation had taken place, the complaint had not even been officially received yet. But, again, none of this evidently bothers you, but Ms. LaFrance's conduct evidently does.

Jack Sapia who was a co-defendant, and a co- plaintiff in his countersuit at the time, stated to the committee that he had no litigation involving the chief, and would remain on the board, yet you evidently again do not find this conduct dishonest and reprehensible, only Ms. LaFrance.

And finally, there was a time when the COI had to meet "the juror standard", that language was changed after my first ethics complaint against the chief, another complaint which the COI ignored, and the Court had to tell him to follow the law.

The fact of the matter is that, per the Ordinance, for a member to be in conflict themselves, they must have a legal, financial, or familial interest in the case being heard. I do not know that Ms. LaFrance had any of those, but now it is moot, due to the fact that the committee, once again failed to do their job.

We have a committee that, in the words of Dick SMith, "only listne to legal opinions that confirm the way we are already leaning"

But, of course, you choose to ignore all of this to cast your aspersions.

Also HOW EXACTLY, did YOU become so knowledgable about a complaint that was never accepted?

Anonymous said...

Nice job Mark. He is knowledgeable to inside information because he/she is an insider that wants to stop amy complaints against the chief. That happens a lot in this town in order to protect the corruption.

Don't expect an answer to tough questions, expect your car and home to be attacked again.

I believe the CON-MAN arranged for your home and car to be attacked, but you are to much of a gentleman to say it. I believe that he used his police dept. to cover up and demeaned you in the process.

Thus is the problem of corruption in Atkinson. Starts with the CONMAN but doesn't stop at the CONMAN.

Consentino MUST be fired in order the start the process of cleaning up our town.

jmfootptpot

Anonymous said...

The New Town Government presented by the Atkinson Reporter 2:

Selectmen; Bennett, Acciard, Artus

Budget Committee; Paquette(not the good one)carol davis, the clown with the derby hat,mrs "i live on the lake and am clueless,mr grant

town moderator; carol grant

police chief; joyce "no one likes me in my neighborhood" lafrance

Anonymous said...

Hey CONMAN, remember when the bomb supposedly blew up on your lawn during your Peaks fight? You going to arrange for that to happen again? Helped you a little that time, guessing you should bring that about again.

By the way Phil...........how did that suit work out for you. Did that cost the town any money?

Just checking you fat,bald, ugly bastard you.

Anonymous said...

Better still:

All positions filled with THE CONMAN with MAGGOT'S as backup in case the CONMAN can't serve.

Now the town can be assured of honesty.

Anonymous said...

That was a good one. Maggot likes to dress in black because it hides her fat, (doesn't work for her) just like the CONMAN. Remember when all selectmen under CONMAN'S RULE use to show up at selectmen’s meeting in black with white ties?

Maggot with a white tie doesn't work either. No color coordination to accentuate the fake boobs.

Yes, personal attack with facts. Take a pill
.

Anonymous said...

Okay anon @ 1:01PM. Let's say your assumption is correct about the assertion that Atkinson is paying like Haverhill comparatively speaking. Haverhill has about 56,000 residents and a pd budget of $8,700,000. That would mean they are paying about $154 per person for police (budget/residents). Atkinson has about 6700 residents and a $738,000 pd budget. This would be about $110 per person. For us to spend like Haverhill comparatively we would need to spend an additional $44 per person or just under 300k which would bring the pd budget to over 1 million. I stand by my claim. The author is posting nonsense. Just because it's posted on the blog, doesn't make it gospel. Try applying a little critical thinking.

Anonymous said...

Let's see Mark. You say you are jumping to no conclusions at all, but yet you claim that I am not concerned about the wrong doing of others simply because I didn't comment on it. Interesting how you can make that leap. Do you always put words in other people's mouths or just when one of your acolytes is challenged? Joyce was essentially in the role of plaintiff if she had indeed filed several complaints about the chief. Would ANY judge in this country allow someone like that to sit on a jury? You obviously are THE authority on integrity. At least you like to play yourself off as such. I attacked Mrs. LaFrance's post because it showed a lack of integrity on her part. "Why should I do right when others are doing wrong!" was the gist of her comments. Someone who sits on that committee shouldn't even have the appearance of having a bias, but clearly she does if the reports of a number of complaints by her against the chief are accurate. I will say one thing Mark, it's so very touching to see you come to the rescue of one of your lapdogs. You're a fraud Acciard.

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 13, 2011 3:14 PM

You said: Joyce was essentially in the role of plaintiff if she had indeed filed several complaints about the chief.

Where is the proof and how did you get it that she filed any complaints against the chief. You went on to say that Mark was a fraud based on your false assumption. How did you make that leap? Are you Phil Consentino? If not, where did you get your factual information to make your assumption of Mark or Ms. LaFrance.

Seems to me YOU ARE THE FRUAD! (OR AT LEAST DEFLECTING)

I believe you are a CONSENTINO SUPPORTER, and we all know what a fraud he is.

jmhooyayfi

Anonymous said...

You may think I'm a Consentino supporter, but I KNOW you're a fruitcake.

jmhoyfdamf

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 13, 2011 3:14 PM

You said: "Someone who sits on that committee shouldn't even have the appearance of having a bias,"

Yet you have no problem with the bias the selectmen have for Consentino for serving with out appointment and all his other misdeeds.

Take the picture as a whole and not by it parts. You agree with all that the selectmen have covered up?

Why do you focus on Ms. LaFrance during an election, when there is so much more to the picture?

You biased? We think so. You part of a political agenda? We think so.

Please get om touch with yourself to see where you stand between right and wrong. See the BIG PICTURE, not the little mind you seem to possess.

mo

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 13, 2011 3:41 PM

How would you know that? Can’t help but notice that was the best you could do with the questions I asked.

You never responded to the questions so guess we know who is the fruitcake.

Some people like fruitcake, but I appreciate you not answering my questions. You have just been exposed for the "NO credibility" that you are.

Have a nice day.

MAcciard said...

While I agree with adhering to the juror standard, unfortunately the committee did away with that 5 years ago, when having that standard would have done away with the chief's friends on that committee.

As to my antagonistic friend, I am not supporting Ms. LaFrance to be judge and jury, I am simply pointing out that you are attacking her for some perceived wrong, when the case never progressed far enough for her to be an issue at all.

The perfidities of her colleagues on the committee DID however undermine, once again, a claim against the chief, with his help.

And once again the committee would rather protect him than do their sworn duty.

And finally, I am amused at the positions taken by you, the selectmen, the chief, Frank, Jack, et al., that in Atkinson it appears that the unforgivable sin is to file a complaint against our chief for things he ACTUALLY does. This is the crowd that would rather slander the complaintant, than examine the merits of the claim.

No committee or board in town EVER looks at the merit of the complaint, they allow themselves to be deluded into believing the prevaricator in chief's "he has a vendetta against me" claim, and hope that maybe he won't do anything for a while.

When simply applying the town employee discipline policy would have corrected so much.

Anonymous said...

There you go again with making leaps Mark. Please go back to my posts and pull out the section where I said or implied that it's an "unforgivable sin" to file a complaint against anyone. I'll be anxiously awaiting your evidence for the basis of your claim.

As far as Joyce, I'm attacking her for her position that she took in her post. Do you require a reading comprehension class to understand that? She is an elected town official and I expect better than what she displayed, regardless if others have committed larger sins or not.

Anonymous said...

to January 13, 2011 4:57 PM

then go ahead and attack her if that makes you feel better, big man. you are acting like jerk and fixating on her because you obviously have a vendetta against her.

making a legitimate complaint against someone is not reason for recusal. her complaint was taken seriously enough that the selectmen forwarded it to the attorney general for advice and review.

it doesn't make her biased or unfit to sit on the board.

Anonymous said...

She has some rotten neighbors over there. Did you know that one of them poisoned all the trees on her property? It will be the next lawsuit we follow on the blog.

Oh, and the police didn't want to do anything about it. Sound familiar?

Anonymous said...

LOL @ 5:46PM. Is that the best you can do? I'm being a big bad meanie towards a poor little girl? The opinion that she expressed of why should I do right when others are doing wrong doesn't fly, but yet I'm being a "jerk" for calling out a town official who apparently thinks it's okay not to do the right thing depending upon the circumstances. I'd love to see the reaction from this blog if Sapia posted the same logic that she did. Oh, but she's in league with Acciard so we can't pay attention to her misgivings now can we. Hypocrits.

Anonymous said...

Conman only investigates complaints from his supporters. He arrests those that stand against him and his supporters. Is that justice or corruption. You be the judge until you are arrested.

Constino uses his position against his political foes. That's wrong and illegal. Get rid of the CONMAN before he arrest you.

He is the protection arm of the selectmen when they get into trouble. Get it?

Anonymous said...

Sapia is a KNOW lier, so please don't involk his name. If you support Sapia, come out and say so. I think you already did. Prve me wrong. Where do you stand on Sapia's positions?

Anonymous said...

Nothing in my post indicated support or disdain for Sapia. I merely used him as an example as one that this blog wouldn't allow that reasoning to slide. I suspect it would be the same with the selectmen if that makes you feel better.

Anonymous said...

Ya right. You involked ths Sapia name, I didn't. Do you support him and his views or not. Simple question that requires a simple answer. Yes, or no. State your position or don't post again. I think you are a dim wit. Prove me wrong by answering the question and nothing else.

Bet you can't do it. Will wait for your proof.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
We live in Mayberry RFD. There's no crime here. Why are we paying like its Haverhill?

We're paying like it's Haverhill? Really. Haverhill's PD budget is 8.6 million or more than twice the town's operating budget. What nonsense.



January 13, 2011 12:37 PM


Lets look at this

Haverhill MA source wikipedia
60500 population 2010
1798 people per sq mile
35 sq miles total

Atkinson
6572
592 people per sq mile
11 sq miles

Seems like a split in half correct? Except for population.

So 8.6 million /60500=142.15/2=71.08

This is what the budget should be for Atkinson 71.08*6572=467,100.83 per year.

142.15*6572=934209.8 so yes you are paying like its Haverhill MA

Macciard said...

To 4:57; it is you that seems to have a reading comprehension problem. She said that there was no reason to recuse herself at that time, because there was nothing to recuse herself from. And yet this is the action you choose to harp on, not Jacks lie to themccommittee, or his vote when he did have to recuse himself. You ignore the illegal meetings and the chiefs intimidation, but none ofmthis ismnew for you, is it?

Anonymous said...

I see you couldn't produce the evidence I asked for Mark. I would think a man of such INTEGRITY as yourself would have recanted his statement. I think you had your lackey LaFrance get on the CIC to help you with your vendetta against the chief. Joyce is to AR2 what you were to AR1.

Anonymous said...

While comments here will not sway the person/people criticizing LaFrance, for those simply reading these exchanges and forming their own opinions...

Ms. LaFrance is not being criticized for anything she did; she's being criticized for how she said she would act (not recusing herself) if a CIC hearing had occurred.

Under the rules, Ms. LaFrance would not have been obligated to recuse herself, it is simply her critic's opinion that she should.

The incidents in question saw some glaring misbehavior by others in authority, but not by Ms. LaFrance. To the contrary, she may have been the sole principal to behave as voters would reasonably hope and expect.

MAcciard said...

Frank, I have no lackeys, Noe a vendetta against our corrupt chief, or you, but you have an established track record of throwing stones when you think you can not be identified, don't you, Janus?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ January 13, 2011 9:00 PM

Do you really think acreage has anything to do with it? It's population density. We need police protection against the bad elements of our population, not against squirrels stealing robin eggs. Your analysis makes no sense.

http://nneindicators.unh.edu/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=33&FIPS=33000

Again, the comparison to Haverhill is nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Janus is Polito. Talk about a lack of integrity. He recorded the CIC meeting and did not ask anyone if it was ok with them.

Talk about a biased and sneaky.

Not to mention the wild out of control outbursts of venom he continues to spew on the rest of the town.

Glad he's gone from politics but I wish he'd leave the blog and go back to work.

Anonymous said...

No wonder his wife threw him out.

Anonymous said...

something Janus excels at is organized conspiracy to intimidate citizens of the town and take away their rights. Janus sets the example. What was he doing at the CIC meeting when he already resigned in disgrace? Who is Janus representing at the CIC meeting? Who is Janus representing in his attacks here against this lady? Whose attack dog is Janus?

There is hope the new lawsuit finally impacts Janus and comes to finally get that his shenanigans are wrong and will be stopped.

Janus going after the only member of the CIC who has any true integrity shows just what a lowlife looks like.

While glad he resigned, his evil stain still taints our BOS. They are culpable for listening and abiding his dispicable actions toward citizens of the town.

Anonymous said...

Janus

Subtract the J and what do you get?

Smells bad to me!

Anonymous said...

omg, 2 funE

j-anus was sitting with the con man at the meeting.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Janus a girls name? That could explain a lot.

Anonymous said...

Mark. Don't be so modest. Of course you have lackeys and Joyce is one of your star pupils. Now I'm still waiting for you to recant your statement since you clearly were unable to find any evidence to support it. Surely a man who is an authority on integrity would do such a thing. Should I hold my breath while I wait???

Now tell me, am I Frank or someone named Janus? With these new identities, I'm starting to feel as though I'm suffering from multiple personality disorder! Oh if I were Frank that would just be too easy. Care to try again? This is kind of fun.

Getting back to Joyce's post, I can break it down for you since you have a problem with reading comprehension. Just say the word and I'll be happy to help. I'll reiterate the bottom line. Joyce feels as though it's okay to be in the wrong so long as others are. Not a very good quality for one of our elected officials don't you agree?

I'll leave you with this Mark. I wish for you to be able to release your bitterness and enjoy your life moving forward. Life's too short to carry around such baggage.

Anonymous said...

Janus continues to attempt to besmirch the good name of Joyce Lefrance. His reading comprehension is low or a light bulb would shine in his pea brain that he has no traction. He successfully created some controversy but it worked out poorly and backfired for those he represents. They should reprimand him for poor performance.

Anonymous said...

Frank's position is purely speculative but he cannot let go of his presumed outcome even though he thinks he can predict what someone would do -if only - if only -if -if -if.

How could he not be right? HE has to be right, it's all that matters.

hahahaha

Anonymous said...

"Joyce feels.."

She never said any of this so why do you put your spin on it and put words in her mouth and pretend you know her at all? Big man too ashamed to put his name on his attacks.

Anonymous said...

To Joyce's critic(s)...

Your opinion is clear that you feel had there been a hearing, Joyce should recuse herself based on what you believe would have been her inability to come into the hearing without bias. That is stipulated.

She said that had there been a hearing, she would not have recused herself. OK, so you and she see the same circumstances differently.

Do you agree that the legal requirement for recusal would have been "legal, financial or familial ties to the case?"

Do you feel any of these recusal criteria are met?

If so, how? If not, then is it fair to say your criticism stems more from your sense of propriety rather than any legal basis?

And if we're discussing propriety, could you comment on the behavior of some of the other principals in this thread?

Anonymous said...

Debate here completely supports regionalized policing with a bunch of additional reasons beyond dollars.

MAcciard said...

Please do "break it down for me" Frank.

Anonymous said...

Poor Mark thinks he has it all figured out. You're wrong quite Frankly. I think I'll ponder that while eating some Franks and beans for dinner. Or better yet, maybe I'll start planning my vacation to Frankfurt Germany. To be perfectly Frank, it doesn't really matter who I am, but it is funny to watch you try to defend your alcolyte while exposing yourself to be a fraud. Thanks for the entertainment of it all.


With love,

Frank

Anonymous said...

FINALLY someone that doesn't like Mark that’s supposedly not a Town official.

Did you wife leave you because she caught you wearing her underwear Frank, or should we say Janis because you picked a better name than hers?

Are you finally "coming out" and are Town officials trying to FIND A WAY to pay for your PARTY at taxpayer expense?

May we suggest a pretty pink dress with matching pumps?

Say there, you would look elegant!

Anonymous said...

Thank you anon. Pink is my favorite. That reminds me. Mark, remember when I was the moderator and you were the budget chair and things were good between us? You would get out of line and I would drop your pants and spank your bare bottom? {{{SIGH}}} Those were the good days Mark. Let's make things right again.

Love Frank

Anonymous said...

Did you notice today's Eagle Tribune had an Atkinson Police log? I was glad to see it, but would prefer to see names and addresses. But it is a start.

Anonymous said...

You're welcome Frank (Janis or whatever you are calling yourself today), how long have you been cross dressing and is that why your wife left you? You should have spanked her once in awhile. Preshaps she would have stayed a bit longer.

Anonymous said...

It's Friday... they're into the martinis early today.

Anonymous said...

I know it. Just can't trust those town officials once they start on their martinis! Now you know why selectmen's meeting is on Monday night and not Friday night. God help us if they change to Fridays.

Anonymous said...

Cupie Doll. Come to deliberative session, Garity is the better moderator. He treats people well. Garrity stops heckling. He is fair. The man has no anger unlike you Cupie Doll who spews hostility and enjoys it.

Garrity is not a dictator with an inferiority complex. Nor is he a control freak and a bully.

Deliberative session last year was.decent, respectful and kind. People were encouraged to treat each other as Good Neighbors and show respect. He had no problem with having his picture taken because he has "stature" and "height".

Wish you woulda been there Cupie. It was wonder and you could feel the relief from repression.

Leadership is important. And you must be responsible to control the "dark side" of your personality so it does not imperil your Good Neighbors. The same is true in a relationship or a family. You are responsible for controlling you own dark side so your wife and children experience can enjoy your patience, kindness and love.

Anonymous said...

ggod night Frank

Anonymous said...

and may god be with you Phil.

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank, whatcha wearing....?

Anonymous said...

I love the Regionalized Policing idea. All these crazed posts prove we need a new way forward. Just a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

They attacked a member of the conflict of interest committee? I woke up so ANGRY I could spit. They have no morals. I am sick and tired of paying for lawsuits, I am sick of it. I will be speaking to the BOS and will they get an earful from ME.

Anonymous said...

Save your spit for shining your shoes. There is no "they", only me, a citizen and voter who called out Joyce for her unethical stance. If you think that simply being a member of the CIC means you're infallible, then you really need to pull your head of of the sand. Have fun crying to the selectmen. I'm sure they'll have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Come to think of it, neither do you.

Anonymous said...

You only have a soap box left. Enjoy your time as a private citizen.

Anonymous said...

" There is no "they", only me, a citizen and voter who called out Joyce for her unethical stance."

Joyce LaFrance did not take an unethical stance, she stood up when she saw the he rest of the committee was corrupt and would not stand up for the intent of the ordinance. She stayed when she knew she could not throw in the towel or the committee would proceed and vote to exonerated the crooked poice chief. She has integrity, CON-tegrity.

The Town taxpayers will prevail. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Dick Smith said that he and the CIC only listened to evidence that supported the way they were leaning. Talk about 'chickening out' of your responsibility to your voters and a lack of integrity. Put him on a witness stand and ask him why he stated in public that the committee only listens to those who support the way the committee is leaning. Do you think he really meant ' the committee only listens to those who support the way the committee


IS TOLD TO LEAN? ?

Talk about a lack of integrity....

Anonymous said...

BREAKING NEWS>>

ATKINSON LOSES THEIR INSURANCE DUE TO ALL THE LAW SUITS AGAINST THE TOWN AND POLITO AND CONSENTINO!!!

ATKINSON LOSES THEIR INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THE ADVICE OF THEIR LAWYERS AND SETTLE THEIR LOSING LAWSUIT AGAINST BROWNFIELD AFTER HE REQUESTED ONLY AN APOLOGY !!!

ATKINSON LOSES THEIR INSURANCE BECAUSE POLITO WON'T THROW IN THE TOWEL AND AGREE HE WAS WRONG TO VIOLATE CITIZEN RIGHT OF MR. BROWNFIELD AND HE WON'T AGREE TO MERELY APOLOGIZE TO MR. BROWNFIELD!!!

TOWN RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE ASKED ...AT TOWN MEETING...TO ABSORB THE ENIRE COST OF THE SETTLEMENT !!!!

Anonymous said...

The funny thing is that the Town Officialus Corruptus don't know enough to say 'Uncle'.

Anonymous said...

So you called out Mrs. LaFrance, what do you think of Jack's conduct? Or Hazetts?

Anonymous said...

Is it true Primex dropped the town? How will we pay damages if the town lost insurance coverage. OMG.

MAcciard said...

It IS true that Primex dropped the Town, and the Town has obtained new coverage through an LGC affiliate. However the New company will not take on the already existing lawsuits. This leaves the taxpayers on the hook for the decisions the Selectmen make in this regard.

The problem here is that the Town was in the process of settling the Artus/Brownfield case, the Plaintiffs having already signed off, and agreed up front to dismiss portions of the case, when the selectmen refused to sign their portion, effectively renegging on the deal. This left not only the 91-A issues, but the Civil Rights violations alleged under the State Constitution alive to be defended. This case goes to trial in May.

Anonymous said...

Naturally, the new carrier would not accept responsibility for events that occured before their coverage began. That would be like getting a new auto insurance policy today and then expecting coverage for an accident that occured last week.

But, in similar fashion Primex would (I presume) continue to cover events that occured while the town WAS covered by Primex until those proceedings reach their legal conclusion.

Now if Primex reached a settlement with the plaintiffs but then the Selectmen refused to honor that settlement, perhaps that could absolve Primex from continued involvement. I'd guess that would depend on specific terms in the policy and who (Town or Primex) has final authority on lawsuit strategy and decisions.

MAcciard said...

Primex has paid out over $66,000 in legal fees in the last 3 years for civil rights cases against Atkinson. They tried to effect settlement in this case, and when their client refused to cooperate, they invoked their contract to end their coverage.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean Primex simply dropped our policy and ended coverage going forward (but still have obligations on this particular case)?

Or that there were provisions in the policy that they invoked that let them withdraw from this particular case without further obligation?

If the latter, was this simply due to Selectmen's refusal to agree to a settlement that Primex had negotiated? And do we know particulars, like WHY the BOS wouldn't accept the settlement?

If the BOS has put the town at financial risk due to their desire to "stand on principle" in spite of their insurance carrier's negotiated settlement, that is not a good thing.

Please clarify for us.

Anonymous said...

I believe there was a warrant passed by the town to have the selectmen agressively counter sue for what might be considered a frivolous lawsuit. If so, then the selectmen would be abiding by the residents will. As far as the deliberative lawsuit, I don't see how the selectmen are in any way culpable. The deliberative session is run by the moderator, not the selectmen.

Anonymous said...

UNBELIEVABLE. A new low has been set.

Anonymous said...

The BOS can start lawsuits against anybody anytime they want by taking a vote and doing it because they think they feel like it? What a joke. This is wrong cause its makes more lawsuits from attorneys protecting there own and we get dumped by our insurance and the town goes broke.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it depends on who blocked the settlement.

If the insurance compnay was going to settle, it was not a frivolous lawsuit or they would have had it thrown out of court. Since the thing is still floating after nearly two years, I think it is fair to assume that the thing had merit.

The warrant article does not compel the selectmen to countersue when there is no reason to believe they would win, that would be ridiculous....not to mention begging for a rewrite.

Anonymous said...

Ah...so this means the cost is on the shoulders of the taxpayers?

Anonymous said...

Yup, and the selectmen tried to protect themselves and their counterparts, for now good legal reason. They lost our insurance provider for not settleing and now have put the cost directly on the Taxpayers. Now you know just how stupid BOBBLEHEADS will be when it comes to protecting the taxpayers as compared to their own Mafia.

All these guys and the CON-man need to go.

Anonymous said...

The insurance company may wish to settle for the simple reason that it might be cheaper than to pay the lawyers to fight it. They're all about bottom line. Preferring to settle does not imply merit.

Anonymous said...

Moderator: "People, people, quiet down! Yes I twisted the citizen warrant article to limit the Board of Selectmen from paying private legal expenses. Now it goes forward as the BOS can sue as frivolous lawsuits brought against the town."

Moderato: "I SAID QUIET DOWN. Now, yes I am the moderator and I intend to sue some of you people in this room. You in the back. SHUT UP or I will REMOVE you and I am town moderator and I have the power to do that!!"

Moderator: "It's not a big deal. Accordingly, my warrant article means we get the town insurance to pick up the tab. It won't cost the taxpayers a dime because Primex will pick up the tab... for the BOS to have legal adventures. NOW, does everyone understand?! While my personal attorney could go after some of the undesirables in this room, that should not concern you. YOU IN THE BACK. Stop munching on that cracker. WHY? Because what you are doing, I consider that to be a disruption of my thinking process and if you don't stop and spit it out right now, I WILL remove you or you will be hearing from my attorney!"

Anonymous said...

If it had no merit, it would have been thrown out of court.

It's still around for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Moderator: "Is there a Point of Order?" Sorry lady, your statement is nonsense. Your mind is disordered. Sit Down and I will continue. Now It is possible that Primex will balk at paying a large award if a judge rules againt the town. But this should not concern you. it's covered regardless because the BOS can raid other parts of the budget. Trust me. It won't cost the taxpayers ten cents."

Moderator: "Officer Goon!! Do what I tell you. Silence that Woman! I am the moderator and I make the rules and I told her TO SWALLOW! You people really piss me off....anyway, to continue, yes I know the town lost the camera 91-A in court. We had a bad judge is all. The good news is that the taxpayers only have to deliver on a 1.6 million settlement. PEOPLE! I am not going to tell you again not to interfere with my mental processing! Anyway, where was I. Oh, ok. The 1.6 million. I met with the BOS in secret meeting and we figure the money can come from enhanced property taxes or the library fund. Don't worry, don't worry PeOpLe!!!!! Only home owners living on Maple Ave will be called on to pay the judgement. The assessor will assess a new view tax on them as we determined residents on Maple Ave. have a nice view of the road."

Anonymous said...

Now the taxpayers will pay for those who's egos would not allow them to have their picture taken in a public meeting. Great.

I do not want to pay for any ex or current town official to sue residents with tax dollars. It is totally unethical and he lacks integrity.

Bos - put a stop to this.

Anonymous said...

Moderator: "OK. All who want my judgement payed only by the residents on Maple Ave. please raise your green card. Ok, we got it done. The deliberative body has spoken. NEXT!!"

MAcciard said...

To 5:15;

Yes Jack amended a petition warrant article about restricting the selectmen's abuse of legal protection for their own personal predilictions, to aggressively pursue plaintiffs for frivolous legal actions.

The really funny thing is the only lawsuits filed that would have passed muster as frivolous is Polito v. Atkinson, which was dismissed for lack of standing. and Baldwin v. Atkinson, in which it was proved that he WAS reimbursed for tuition.

In the Artus et al. case, this has already gone past a preliminary hearing where the Court allowed it to go forward, therefore it is not frivolous. Once a Court decides that there are issues for the finder of fact, it is not frivolous.

Anonymous said...

So the countersuit is going to lose? and the taxpayers would then have to pay the bill and any settlement?

So if they settled before, this would have all been paid by the insurance conpany?

Anonymous said...

What a mess. Thank you BOS for doing such a great job. I'm glad to see your looking out for us.

Now bend over everyone, there's no more KY insurance so its gonna be extra painful!!!

Anonymous said...

BOS You know what you have to do. You have to get rid of HIM.

NOW DO IT FOR CHRISSAKE and BE DONE WITH IT before YOU ALL LOSE YOUR INSURANCE CARRIERS (DUH!).

Prediction - BOS lose their insurance carriers. You boys best start lookin out for yo selves, ya heah. You tink he really cares bout you? It happened to one egomaniac already. You tink you're special?

MAcciard said...

Court upholds Osborn's fine, reducing it due to a calculation error to $109,000, plus assessing a reimbursement to the town of $28,000 in legal fees. Osborns tried a number of appeals of this verdict to no avail. Further the eviction Order stays in place until they have satisfied the requirements of their building permit to obtain an Occupancy permit.

Anonymous said...

At least the osborns had permits to build.

they just didn't build then apply for permits. Maybe they should have done that.

Anonymous said...

Surprised they didn't do it. They did every other dirty trick in the book.
Then again, what do you expect from an Osborn?

Anonymous said...

Mark Do you know the statis of Davis vs Osborn?

Anonymous said...

statis?

Anonymous said...

The I,i and U,u's are next to one another on the key board. Giving that this person may have big fingers I pray you will forgive them there trespass[s] on the key board. I hope your not another english and grammar expert trying to correct us all for our unfortunate failing capabilities to be so like you who appears to be superior to we the lesser than you. Get a life will you!

Anonymous said...

take a class, and get some.

Anonymous said...

The I,i and U,u's are next to one another on the key board {keyboard is one word}. Giving {Given} that this person may have big fingers I pray you will forgive them there {their} trespass[s] {es} on the key board {one word again}. I hope your {you're} not another english {capital E} and grammar expert trying to correct us all for our unfortunate failing capabilities to be so like you who appears to be superior to we the lesser than you {run-on sentence}. Get a life will you!

{Grade: D}
Class is over

Anonymous said...

It is the thought and meaning of what is written by the author . What really does it matter how it is written? You do not have to read it or stay on the site with critical response . May be the author intentionally wrote the message to get a response from you . Did you ever think of that?

Anonymous said...

If you don't write clearly, no one gets your point. Is this important to you or is your point merely to be contrary?

Anonymous said...

I might not be as "BRIGHT" as you ,however, I do know I'm in the majority of the readers. We who are in the majority have spoken out to no great result. You the superior of the minority should run for office and cure all our ills in town governing. Get my point!!

Anonymous said...

How do you know I am not already in office?

A bit presumptuous, no?

Anonymous said...

WHEN IS THE BLOG GOING TO PUT IN A STORY ABOUT THE OSBORNS GETTING JUSTICE?? OR ARE YOU EXPOSING YOURSELVES AS THE FRAUDS YOU ARE? NO TRUTH HERE, ONLY THUGS AND BULLIES. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES FOR YOUR CIBER BULLYING.

LEON, I WROTE IN UPPER CASE FOR YOU, SINCE YOU'VE SHOWN A PREFERENCE FOR IT.

Anonymous said...

1/21 @ 254 , If your already in office why not blog with your real identity? That wouldn't be presumptuous of me would it? After all, if you aren't the chief you can have him harass my family when we leave our driveway.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for the blog to explain how wrong we all are about the cyber bullies who dominate this site. When are you going to stop patting yourselves on the back and get real jobs? Aren't you bored yet with your mindless attacks on our town? Why not do us all a favor and move to Massachusetts? They love blog trolls and wanna-be lawyers down there.

Anonymous said...

Hey Leon,

I hear you would be a great addition to the PD. You could be the court prosecutor. HAHAHAHAHA. Please tell the audience how you did in court the other day helping the poor neighbor of the evil Maggie Osbourne? HASHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

Anonymous said...

To January 22, 2011 7:45 AM

Can you compose one simple clear witten statement? Nothing you write is comprehensible.

Oh, and why don't you blog using your name? A hypocrit are you?

Anonymous said...

1/23 @ 9:39 , I made myself clear enough and I'm not the hypocrite , you are . The proof in this weak pudding you present is obvious. I wonder why it took you that long to complain after my blog . There does not appear to be the many who read this blog faithfully complaining of my opinion. Why is there is no one else siding with you since? You have to be one of the officials in office that are squirming in their seats personally and ,so called , professionally. JMO

Anonymous said...

To JMO..

Your writing is so poor, and your message so confused that most of us have no idea what your positions are.

Did you attend Timberlane by any chance?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he attended trade school in Haverhill.

Anonymous said...

Trade school or timberlane doesn't matter because I have a job where you apparently have none. given that you seem to me as the same writer on this blog why don't you get up off your ass and do some tone thing constructive? Why don't you ,being so superior to me , run for some officialdom office and at your best try to straighten out the craziness of the towns politics? That is a challenge you wont meet I'm sure . Your just a shaking blow heart . That is to say one who is already one of the few failing in town politics trying to c.y.a. I'm sure that if you have read this message that you wont reply because ,as you say , no one can understand my writing and its intent for comprehension purposes. May be the taxpayers will come to the towns offices with a legal warrant to search into the computer history to see who you really are. Don't be any to surprised!!

Anonymous said...

Wow...

Evidently, you have yet to graduate and hardly qualify for anything including "officialdom", what ever that is!!!!

Anonymous said...

You are right about one thing:
"...no one can understand my writing and its intent for comprehension purposes".

On that we can agree.

Anonymous said...

Nice diversion from the main topic. Let me remind you.

"Regionalized Policing. Atkinson is perfect for it."

Great article. It would solve SO many problems. We would SAVE A FORTUNE and be rid of a major liability. I'm tired of paying for the lawsuits. Plaistow is run by a professional full time chief. If Plaistow covered Atkinson, we wouldn't have to hire and pay for a FT chief because we'd get the benefit of having Plaistow's chief. Savings over $100K right there.

Look at the website:

http://www.plaistow.com/Pages/
PlaistowNH_Police/index

According to Plaistow's published crime statistics, Plaistow dispatch handled 1538 fewer calls for Atkinson in 2010 vs 2009. Imagine that. Check it out for yourself. Imagine having access to real information.

Anonymous said...

Sure there's fewer calls, why bother when they do not do anything when you do call.

Anonymous said...

It would be easier and better if we had a PD that was professional and treated ppl fairly without lawsuits. This could be a nice town but this hangs over all of us year after year.

Anonymous said...

12:08 , You left out the very start of the wording of the complete sentence. You do seem to be very selective when you quote in order to cya. I notice that there isn't anyone else commenting ! Now that I've said that I will assume you will be writing more anonymously as some other person to back up your covering of your dupa. If you don't know the meaning of dupa look it up in a Polish dictionary. Oh!! and we do not agree on your last words of comprehension . How is it you read and made sense of what I wrote to have made the reply you did ? I forgot!! Your superior to me. [ sarcastic comment to you and with the best intentions] Sorry but I have to go back to work this evening to my highly paid trade position.

Anonymous said...

Ain't possible for you to control yourself and stick to the topic is it? U just HAVE TO get last word in.

Anonymous said...

That is because Atkinson report of number of calls includes elderly affairs calls.

So glad the Ag separated those two depts.

Anonymous said...

1/24 @6;31 I can't resist having the last word when dealing with a jerk. The jerk kept on and on about the way I wrote and yet claimed to be not able to comprehend what was written. To stay on the subject is hard to do when jerks like them keep on being critical of the way people write their opinion of the subject at hand. There can't be much doubt as to who they are that do this just to be critical of another for responses to avoid the subject. All taxpayers have the right of expressing themselves equally regardless of stature with in the community but again it is hard when dealing with a jerk nut job of superior attitudes .

Anonymous said...

Wow.

And you are too angry to be posting, take a pill.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has the right TO express themselves without regard for their stature (or lack of it)WITHIN the community.

Anonymous said...

9:53, I do not have to take any more pills thank you. What I need is for the nut job to stay on the subject like every one else. But they rather be an English and writing major critical of me and, yes, others. Why in hell they don't try an apply at Timberlane or else where to volunteer their so called abilities is beyond me. That way we all can read and respond to this blog site w/o being harassed as we have been with that persons superior attitude and personality.

Anonymous said...

11:25 , Thank you for comment of every one having the right to respond to any given writings and opinions.

Anonymous said...

Huh?

Anonymous said...

Another ass heard from! So I left out the word -YOUR- between for and comment. Haven't you ever done that same thing? I forgot that your superior perfect for a moment! Take my suggestion of volunteering your services at Timberlane or some where else,jerk.

Anonymous said...

I already volunteer, but thank you for the nice compliments.

Hampstead is having anger management classes next week. You might think about joining.

Anonymous said...

Only if you join me ! Its pretty obvios to me you need to because you keep on replying to my commentaries . HaHa1! HeeHE!!! HoHoHoooooHooooooooo!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. So replying = anger. Interesting logic to say the least. The word is "obvious" not "obvios".

Anonymous said...

You forgot or neglected to see the error -1 instead of-!. I purposely made the errors It does show me that you are the jerk and blow hard I thought you were. I guess your not so bright after all. I've had my last say with you because the fun is now gone having dealt with you . You're obviously less than superior to me and others you tried persecuting with your english and grammar antics.

Anonymous said...

Actually I saw them, but there are so many errors you make it's difficult to keep up. By the way, there is no space between the last word in a sentence and the period. Enjoy your evening.

Anonymous said...

Me and this computer are old . I'm usually in a rush making money in my trade that takes me out at all hours . Btw , if I get a call at some time of night from you I promise I wont charge you any more than any one else.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»