From the NH Insider;
From www.nhinsider.com
OOPS! I Stepped In Pure Democracy
Let us return to the Town of Windsor dear readers. No police Department, no highway crew, no school, no library, no bloated retirement program for former employees – almost a low tax nirvana you might say - except of the “Immoral Windsor Majority”.
As pure democracy goes, you have all the failings of it highlighted in this tiny NH hamlet. That would be the usual gang of self-serving locals and wanna-bees who use the 50% plus one advantage to do things such as pick the pockets of their neighbors, pass zoning regulation but ignore it themselves, create income producing projects for themselves, and hold highly regarded elected office.
But as we sit and wait for the Melanson and Heath auditing firm to valiantly try and figure out whathappened to the taxes the Selectmen and Tax Collector did randomly and wantonly collect for the single year 2007, one wonders what happened to the uncollected taxes of friends and relatives of the Immoral Majority pre 2000 to 2006?
Recently, the Selectmen ABATED the taxes of some of the insiders which were not collected from 2000 until the Windsor Taxpayers exposed the long running scam in Superior Court with their Right to Know case.
As luck would have it, the Windsor Immoral Majority LOST all the financial records from before 2000. That’s the “Windsor Way”. My suspicion is that there would have been a “dog ate my homework” excuse in 2008 when once again the town finances collapsed from fraud and mismanagement.
The score in this game so far:
Random Tax Collector and Taker Carer of Friends Beverly Hines – resigned, stuck on incompetent, may have to claim she is bi-polar if this goes south.
Selectman and Coverer Upper of Beverly Hines – resigned, stuck on stupid, may have to claim a medical condition if the audit goes to 2000.
Windsor Selectmen – stuck holding the racketeers together until something breaks, may have to plead collective prove bi-polaritis.
Windsor Taxpayer Association – One pro se court win, court costs reimbursed, clean hands, possesses the most complete collection of town records in existence, got a front page story about Windsor corruption on the FRONT PAGE of the Boston Globe on March 28, 2008, can walk away from this any time they want.
The Windsor Immoral Majority – Can still elect or appoint any like-minded candidate they choose (wow), can mutually comfort themselves with fantasy stories about how wonderful they are, stuck being themselves, seem to be fighting amongst themselves on weekends? Is that a new Windsor hobby?
CNHT – we have an inside look at and proof of the way the NH Department of Revenue and the AG’s Office have covered up, so far, for the incompetent and possibly criminal actions of the Windsor Immoral Majority for eight years we know of, more info for the Professional Conduct Committee on the behavior of one attorney, Paul Apple, of the Upton and Hatfield law firm - who has been a thorn in the side of good government in several towns and schools we operate in, the right to bring our own Right to Know case, and don’t forget that court win we had when the Windsor Immoral majority tried to keep a video camera out of Town Meeting 2006 (front page Union Leader story there).
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 10:33AM by Ed Naile
Compare this to our selectmen shouting down comments they disagreed with, "GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!" from our chief for one; the blatent conflicts of interest even AFTER the Court Ordered them to knock it off.
Eerily similar...
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm watching the selectmen's meeting and I just noticed something...
Mrs. Consentino asks to withdraw almost $2,000 from the donation acct., and the selectmen just close the public hearing.
Nobody ever voted to spend the money. I thought they had to vote to send money, or do anything for that matter? does anyone know?
The Warrant article, and the enabling RSA that established the donation account, 15 years ago, REQUIRE that only the selectmen may expend money out of that account. And legally the BOARD of selectmen can only take an action by a MAJORITY VOTE. So, yes, they have been doing things wrong for years. Here is another side note; the law also requires that ALL public hearings be posted for 7 days prior to the meeting. In the case of these withdrawals that has never been done.
So probably all or most of those expenditures have been illegal, in a strict interpretation of the law, but I am not a lawyer, so what do I know?
i'm thinking the 3 people that checked it would be OK in the poll, must work for Atkinson PD!
Mark wrote:
>the law also requires >that ALL public hearings >be posted for 7 days >prior to the meeting
Mark -
The relevant law here is
91-A:2 and the required notice period is 24 hours.
Tim, I just saw your comment, sorry for the tardy response;
With all due respect, you are looking at the posting rules for normal business meetings.
The warrant article that established the donation account, and the enabling legislation it was established under were "special revenue accounts" which require a "public hearing" which requires 7 day posting in 2 public places, or a newspaper of general circulation in the town.
Here are the RSA's;
31:95-c Special Revenue Funds. –
I. Towns may, pursuant to RSA 31:95-d, vote to restrict revenues, or any portion of revenues, from a specific source to expenditures for specific purposes. Such revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for in a special revenue fund separate from the general fund.
II. Notwithstanding paragraph IV, towns may establish, pursuant to RSA 31:95-d, special revenue funds to:
31:95-d Procedure for Adoption. –
I. Any town may adopt the provisions of RSA 31:95-c to restrict revenues, or any portion of such revenues, from a specific source to expenditures for specific purposes in the following manner:
(a) In a town, the question shall be placed on the warrant of a special or annual town meeting under the procedures set out in RSA 39:3, and shall be voted on by ballot. The question shall not be placed on the official ballot.
(b) The selectmen shall hold a public hearing on the question at least 15 days but not more than 30 days before the question is to be voted on. Notice of the hearing shall be posted in at least 2 public places in the municipality and published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 7 days before the hearing.
31:95-e Acceptance of Personal Property Donated to Towns and Village Districts. –
I. Any town or village district at an annual meeting may adopt an article authorizing the board of selectmen or board of commissioners to accept gifts of personal property, other than money, which may be offered to the town or village district for any public purpose, and such authorization shall remain in effect until rescinded by a vote of town or village district meeting.
II. Prior to the acceptance of any such gift with a value of over $500, the selectmen or commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acceptance. For gifts with a value of $500 or less, a public hearing on the proposed acceptance shall be at the discretion of the selectmen or commissioners.
III. No acceptance of any personal property under the authority of this section shall be deemed to bind the town or village district to raise, appropriate or expend any public funds for the operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of such personal property.
Post a Comment