Yeah! Right!
So we are all familiar with the AG's office letter to Phil and the Town, claiming that the operation of the donation acct. has been illegal. We also know that the AGO made two recommended courses of action to clean it up.
1.) Turn the operation of te acct. over to the trustees of the trust funds. That would be the honorable course of action for someone like our chief, who is always whining about his good name, but can he stand to give up control of the acct.? The trustee of the trust funds, Dale Childs, takes her responsibilities very seriously in this realm, and is unlikely to put up with any of Phil's shenanigans. But the answer is no, he did not take the open, accountable course of action.
Course 2, was to establish a non-profit, charitable organization similar to the fireman's assoc. to take control of the funds.
This is the course of action Phil chose, but true to form for him, he found a way to do this, with even less openness and less accountability than the prior situation that the AGO complained about! Only in Atkinson! And only Phil!
He has set up a non profit corporation, registered with the Secretary of States office, and the Charitable Trust division of the AGO. He obtained the EIN from the IRS. By the way, all of this takes about 30 minutes to accomplish. He has not yet filed with the IRS for charitable Organization status, But wants the town to give him the $17,000 left in the donation acct.
You gotta love this guy, he makes Bill Clinton look forthright.
You can view the documents here;
Atkinsontaxpayers.org
There is only one little problem with phil's diabolical plan.....
THE LAW!, but, in our observation, he rarely lets that get in his way, The law prohibits the town from donating money except to a local charity from which the town gets something in return.
This little scheme isn't a charity yet, not until the IRS says so.
And the town isn't getting $17,000 worht of anything for that money.
And we forgot to mention the best part;
PHIL IS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THIS SCAM!
The REST of the board of directors is made up of his FOUR ELDERLY DRIVERS!!
Talk about a conflict of interest!, Yeah, we know, He has proven he doesn't understand the meaning of that word, but the IRS does!
I wonder if they will approve charitable org. status for an org. where the entire board of directors works and is paid by the president?
We'll see....
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
If I lived in Atkinson I would insist on giving the funds over to the trustees of the trust funds. But the law is not as clear cut as you say.
See the letter from Terry Knowles in which she explains the circumstances under which the money could be given to the new organization with the approval of the original donors or of the probate court.
It would be interesting to get an opinion as to whether the selectmen could refuse to pay over the money if the original donors are identified and if they indicate approval of the transfer.
At least Phil is consistent. IN the interest of "balance" I can't always harp on his many flaws. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge.
As of last BOS meeting, he does not have the money yet and Mr. Sullivan would not discuss the issue.
So, for the moment, all of Phil's efforts are for naught. And there is no way they cannot see this for what it is. The AG pointed the way, the money belongs with the trustees of the trust funds.
Phil,
If you are always so worried about people dragging your good name through the mud,
then why do you keep creating situations that make people question your character?
Did you ever think if you did what was right in the first place, no one would ever question you.
I know what you mean, here are some examples;
Brian Boyle- when his project came before the board, or any regs about builders, he left the board.
Paul Sullivan- when the fire dept. came before budget committee, he announced his conflict and kept his mouth shut.
Mark Acciard- Didn't vote on police matter on budget committee for over two years.
But Phil just doesn't get it.
he obviously thinks he should be able to do what he wants when he wants without question.
I tell you, you would think after everything that has happened with the conflict of interest issue's with Phil, that he would of learned the differnce between right and wrong. But he keeps doing it! Everyone is allowed to make a mistake once, but if you make the same mistake twice, then your just an idoit.
Thinking about this some more:
The first letter from Terry Knowles made it clear that only the trustees of the trust funds can legally manage and expend charitable funds in care of the town. So your selectmen should turn the funds over to the trustees, as directed.
Then, if your chief wants to chase down all the donors and get as many as he can to sign letters to turn over the funds to his new organization, as mentioned in the second letter, he could approach the trustees and they should be the ones to decide if there is sufficient documentation, both that the person actually gave the money (e.g. canceled check) and that it is the intent of the person that the town turn over the money. And somehow they would have to account for how much of the donated funds have already been expended.
There could be messy tax implications if somebody took a deduction when they gave the money to the town fund, and then authorized the transfer to a new organization before it has achieved tax-exempt status. Towns automatically have tax-exempt status for donations.
You just can't make this crap up.
Phil's actions make a clear statement. He is sticking his nose up to all.
In defense of Phil....
I know it's so hard to follow the law. After so many years of not following the law, we know it will be difficult to change your ways.
Maybe retirement would be an easier solution, than dealing with all of those pesky laws.
I think this is moving in the wrong direction, but as usual, he will get away with it, because he does ggod work with the elderly, that allows him to be a bully to anyone who qquestions him.
and I post anonymously so that i can say this without retaliation from phil.
Yeah and Phil is always screaming that he doesn;t get paid one dime for taking care of the elderly, he does it out of the goodness of his heart.
WRONG!
He is paid about $22,000 by the PD but ask any of the officers there, he spends about 75% of his time on elderly issues, leaving police issues to Baldwin.
Phil could have come out of all this with some of he reputation repaired. What does he do, he does it all wrong, inviting a whole new round of criticism.
Manny being Manny.
But, for him, what is worse? The new criticism or the real possibility, groveling to Dale Childs to release funds.
Here are where his past actions really come back to bite him. Isn't this the same Dale Childs he tried to get fired from Hampstead PD? Gee, I really love this part.
Just because Phil setup a new fund doesn't mean the town can't open a new fund too, deposit the money and turn the control over to the Trustee of the Trust Fund.
I think this is what should happen. The town shouldn't be giving town owned money to just anybody.
The town should expand the elderly services at the community center to provide rides and other help using the elder vehicles and fund everything from the donation account.
If the APD wants their own fund, let them have it. Who cares?
The AG wants these two depts. to be seperate and that's what we should do.
Phil should be removed from both positions, he not trusted and he's not honest. IMHO.
I believe that anyone who donated to the ILLEGAL funds should not have taken a tax deduction since the funds did not fall under the towns tax exempt id. That was established by the AGO already.
So anyone who comes forward to ask that their donations be moved to Phil's account will be subject to IRS scrutiny if they claimed a charitable contribution on their tax return.
Phil owes alot of seniors an apology for misleading them.
It's not Phil Consentino's decision where town money goes or how it is setup. That decision belongs to the BOS. That money is for helping the elderly and the BOS should use it to help the elderly. We don't owe the PD a dime. The taxpayers of Atkinson have been footing the bill when Phil Consentino uses PD payroll to support the elderly affairs dept. This is also illegal. Take all the money and use it on the elderly and separate the PD entirely.
Put an end to the shady operations.
Phil has said in his letters to the AG,
"I am not the proprietor of any funds that are sent to the Police Dept. All funds received are deposited into the town of Atkinson's accounting ledgers. These funds can only be disbursed by the governing body, the three member's board of selectmen."
There you go.
He doesn't own it.
He has no control over it.
IT'S NOT HIS MONEY TO TAKE BACK.
to anon @ 2:06 pm:
I don't believe the AGO said that it was illegal for your town to maintain the funds, accept donations, and disburse the money. The issue was who and how.
I once looked into tax exempt stuff for something connected with my own town. My understanding is that if you voluntarily give money to a governmental unit (e.g. town) for stuff they are allowed to do, and it is in excess of what you are obligated to pay anyway (taxes or fees), and if you don't receive a direct benefit (kickbacks), then it is automatically tax-deductible, and it doesn't matter what paperwork has or hasn't been filed by the governmental unit with the IRS.
I wrote "to anon @ 2:06". I really meant anon @ 1:54.
We all know that the elderly budget isn't big enough to pay for the gas/insurance/maintenace etc. for those vehicles. These costs should not be coming out of the PD budget either, it would be misappropriation. How are these costs paid? I never saw any requests for these costs out of the fund. I want to know how these things are paid. If the Chief is misappropriating PD funds to pay expense for the Elderly Affairs program, then he needs to be fired and prosecuted for it.
An audit would answer these questions.
Paul, if you call in the auditors to examine the donation account, you would be have a clear picture of what the Chief has been up to. Look at the expenses for the elderly affairs dept too and get the low down.
Will you do this for us?
Just try comparing what phil has requested in the public hearings to withdraw from the donation acct. in 2007, to what was actually spent out of that acct.
Money was spent for things never requested in public meetings, and things requested were never spent.
It is a mess.
Thanks again phil, you have now proved to me that you can not be trusted.
This guy HATES people questioning his integrity, but every time he has a chance to do the honorable, ethical thing, he does the opposite!
He creates opportunities for people to question his motives and actions.
Time to retire Phil!
He hate when his integrity is questioned because he just feels guilty, and rightly so.
Curt, maybe people who DONATE to the town can claim the deduction? I'm not sure.
What I am sure about is that the Chief cannot use the Town's tax exempt ID. He can't give it to Hanniford when he wants his can filled with $600.00 cash. Their company policy requires a tax exempt ID number before they collect for a cause.
How many people were given the town's number ILLEGALLY?
How many people were told his fund was non-profit when it's just NOT LEGAL?
to anon August 30, 2008 7:54 AM:
I don't claim any expertise as to federal tax law. A small amount of research has led me to the conclusion that if somebody donates money to your town, it is tax deductible and tax ID numbers are completely irrelevant. If somebody can quote chapter and verse to prove me wrong, I would be OK with that.
I wouldn't take Hannaford's corporate policies as representing actual legal requirements. They will be conservative and err on the side of requiring more than the law does. It probably does make sense to look at tax IDs for nongovernmental organizations, which is what most of the fundraisers are. So they will apply a uniform policy even though towns (IMHO) have a special status.
Just to demonstrate that stores are more conservative than the law requires, the federal regulations requiring people 27 or under to show ID when buying tobacco to show proof of age were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2000. But you will still see signs in stores that have been built or remodeled since then stating that this is a current regulation. And there is no legal requirement whatever that cigarettes be locked in cases at the front of the store.
Curt, I never said Hannifod's policy was driven by the law. The important fact is that the Chief used the town tax id as if it were legal for this purpose, which it's not.
I'm sure Hanniford's uses the policy to protect against collecting for illegal funds, such as the Chief's.
to anon@9:44
I take your word for it as i don't know much of anything about tax ids and what is proper or improper regarding municipalities and tax ids.
The primary difference is that no one donated to the town, they donated to the slush fund. Sure, maybe some of it ended up in the town account but indirect donations such as these do not qualify as non-profit donations.
Non-profit doantions have to be made directly to a non-profit organization.
I wonder if he gave people receipts.
Post a Comment