Deliberative Session will be Saturday Jan. 31st at 10:00am at Dyke Auditorium!
Election Day - 7:30 AM until 8:00 PM - Tuesday March 10th at the Community Center
From the Atkinson Taxpayers Association Website http://atkinsontaxpayers.org/
What follows is the text of the citizen petition warrant articles, as they were submitted, prior to the chief's attempts at electioneering;
Warrant Article for Mailing Tax Cards
To see if the Town will vote to direct the Board of Selectmen/assessor to immediately mail a copy of any changes made to a taxpayer’s property tax card, with the reason(s) as to why it was changed. (This would allow every taxpayer to have advanced notice to any changes that would effect their tax bill.) When passed, this warrant article will become effective immediately.
Warrant Article for Posting Tax Information
To see if the voters will vote to direct the selectmen/assessor to post all property tax information on the town web site. When passed, this warrant article will become effective immediately.
Warrant Article for Restricting Legal Fees
To see if the voters will vote to prohibit the selectmen from spending taxpayer money on the personal legal fess of public officials for which the taxpayers have no direct liability and to prohibit the unwarranted payments for legal advice not pertaining to town business When passed, this warrant article will become effective immediately.
Warrant Article for a Full time Police chief
To See if the voters will direct the selectmen to Advertise; screen and interview candidates using he State Police interview unit, and hire the MOST QUALIFIED by objective standards of; education, and time in service (minimum qualifications are; a Bachelors degree in Criminal Justice, and at least 15 years of certified service on a civil police force) candidate for the position of full time police chief. Said position to encompass the duties of the current part-time chief, and the current full time administrative Lieutenant,with salary commensurate with experience and having benefits the same as the current Atkinson Police Lieutenant. The selectmen are to begin this process within 14 days of this article being passed by the voters, and this process MUST be completed within 60 days of the passage of this article.
Advertisements for this position are to run in at least 3 newspapers of general circulation in the Town, for at least 14 days.
Warrant Article to Improve Elderly Services
To see if the voters of Atkinson will vote to expand Elderly Services to provide services to all residents at least 60 years of age; and to all residents with disabilities with no age restriction. To restrict the spending of the Elderly Services budget and Town managed donations, to services directed at the improvement of the health, well-being and protection of the qualified residents. Services are to include rides to medical appointments, and medical devices not already available through insurance or other welfare organizations.To further direct the Elderly Affairs Director to seek out other available State and Federal assistance, such
as, but not limited to, NH Fuel Assistance and Meals on Wheels and to post such information at the Town Hall in a conspicuous location. To further direct the Director of Elderly Affairs to post instructions to qualified residents as to how to request and schedule services, in a conspicuous location at Town Hall. To further direct the Elderly Affairs Director to seek out and manage a staff of volunteers to assist the elderly with non-funded assistance such as, but not limited to, shoveling snow and well-being checks. When passed, this warrant article will become effective immediately.
Warrant Article for an Elected Planning Board
To see if the voters of Atkinson will vote to restrict the staffing of the Planning Board to Elected members only. Elected members of the Planning Board will be prohibited from conducting business with the Town during their session in office. When passed, this warrant article will become effective at the next Town
Meeting.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
So what happens when nobody runs for planning board? Or a few run but you can't get a quorum? Maybe Curt can tell us if this has happened in Danville.
"Doing business with the town" is so vague that I would have second thoughts about running.
This is no different than having an elected BOS. People will run, probably the same people we have now, but at least we will have the option to vote them in or out.
If you have edits to the article, bring them to the meeting. Don't just dismiss the idea because of the wording, fix the wording.
I want more than anyone else to get these walking conflict of interests off the Planning Board, but how many people would really be able to do that job?
But here's what might work; what we really need is balance on the board. Everyone on it doesn't need to have the deepest understanding of every issue; what we need are 2-4 impartial people with the ability to learn who will actually represent the town's interests and can out-vote the people benefiting from construction and development. Once those people discover they can't personally profit off the board anymore they may leave it, but by then the newer people will start knowing what they're doing.
As it is now the board is like a handpicked group of pro business pro-development people that haven't seen a piece of land or a swamp that shouldn't be developed. Or so it seems sometimes...
Our Danville warrant article that passed in 2004:
Article 2004-36 Citizen Petition – Elected Planning Board Members
By Petition: To see if the Town will vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 673:2, II (b) (2) to elect Planning Board Members Beginning at next year’s annual election, pursuant to RSA 669:17.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, you must specify in the article whether to make everyone run at the next election, or to let people serve their appointed terms then have each seat be elected. We chose the latter, indicated by "(2)". The former is indicated by "(1)".
Your warrant article as submitted is defective.
We have no real contests in our town. The planning board chairman keeps track of whose terms are up and asks them to file to run again.
But I think the change did support the goal. 5 years ago our selectmen did not re-appoint a long-serving member who wanted to keep on serving. A similar thing happened several years before that. So this took the composition of the PB out of the selectmen's hands.
As people resign or don't run for re-election, it is just like before. People are recruited, voted into unexpired terms by the other members, then they run unopposed at the next election.
Psychologically it might be less disruptive the way we did it, to start with just a couple of seats coming up in the next election, instead of the entire board.
Warrant Article for Restricting Legal Fees
To see if the voters will vote to prohibit the selectmen from spending taxpayer money on the personal legal fess of public officials for which the taxpayers have no direct liability and to prohibit the unwarranted payments for legal advice not pertaining to town business When passed, this warrant article will become effective immediately.
Can someone please further explain this warrant article and give an example of how, in the past, our tax dollars were spent on a town official's personal legal fees? I'm trying to better understand this issue before I go to the meeting.
For instance, right now there's a lawsuit aganst the Town and against Consentino and Sapia personally. The plaintiff is suing for $3M. The courts recently ruled that the Town has no liability (good news for the taxpayers). However, the Town's insurance company is still representing Consentino and Sapia though they are being sued in their individual capacity.
The town can expect their premiums to increase and hence the warrant article. Also, the past lawsuits where the Chief has been given free representation has cost us, and the retainer for Sumner Kalman has tripled from $10k to $30k in one year. These suits defending this behavior are being paid for by the taxpayers.
You are telling me the PART TIME police chief is to cost another $3,000,000.00 plus the $$$$$$$ to pay the town attorney when it is NOT the responsibility of Atkinson taxpayers? How much more can we afford to pay this town attorney? He is getting rich as Madoff and the selectmen authorize it for us to pay? I am gonna vote to restrict these dopes from making me pay private legal expenses.
NO! The chief AND SAPIA are going to cost us back $3 million!
I'll explain who has received legal representation paid for by us, when it wasn't our job!
In Carol Grant's petition to remove the selectmen, The chief was merely a witness!
He was not on trial, and in no way could suffer from his testimony. He felt he needed an attorney, and he got his personal attorney to represent him as a WITNESS!
He submitted the bill at a selectmen meeting, and Jack and Fred VOTED to PAY IT!
Not taxpayers responsibility!
In my petition to get the chief to stop voting on police matters as a selectmen;
He had town representation, which he should have right up to the day he agreed to knock it off, and the Court issued that Order.
Past that date, including his CONTEMPT hearing, his endless appeals, all the way up to the NH Supreme Court, who also told him to go away, for lack of standing, Town Counsel represented him! ON OUR MONEY!!!
85% of Town Counsels work during 2005 was for the chief of police, and we paid for it!
In my current lawsuit for defamation against the chief, the Town has been dismissed!
The Court even stated, that the Town had no liability for broadcasting the defamation.
The Town is out, and the Town is still paying the insurance company attorney to represent the chief PERSONALLY!
My suit does not sue him as a town official, it states it is against him personally
TO Mark Acciard's comment of January 16, 2009 7:49 AM
What you are saying is the Selectmen are using the very same protection we give them while in office (legal fees & town counsel}, against us when we speak up? They use that protection to take our rights away?
That being true, perhaps the Town's people need to rewrite that protection. Perhaps deny them protection until after a public hearing to explain what the suit is about and why they need to use Town Counsel. We could take a vote after that to allow/disallow them to spend the money. What they are doing now is just plain WRONG.
Just my opinion.
Well, show up at the deliberative session so that we can get this on the ballot with the best wording.
Mark,
Thanks very much for your explanation. This is very helpful.
First let me get this out of the way: I do not work for the Town, and I am not defending the chief, et al. Furthermore, do not have much legal background or knowledge, so if my question seems naive, it is most likely because it is.
To me the question is when does town representation end and personal representation begin? It would be interesting to know the town's justification for covering these legal fees.
The reason I have concern over this particular warrant article is that on one hand, we are calling for the "average" citizen to step up and run for planning board, budget committee, etc. On the other hand, we are now -- potentially -- making these board members personally liable for legal fees that may occur should they find themselves caught up in a lawsuit.
In my opinion, this could dissuade "regular" citizens from running for these positions and make it such that only the wealthier citizens (i.e. contractors, builders, and realtors -- you know, what we currently have in our elected positions) run. In other words, only those people who may be able to afford to pay for legal representation out of their own pocket. And isn't that one of the problems we are facing now and trying to address?
I'd be very interested to read counter arguments and other opinions on what I've written above as, truthfully, I'd really like to support this issue. I'm just having difficulty doing so.
Any Town Official, when sued for any "official act of his office committed in good faith" is entitled to legal representation at the town's expense.
If their action is NOT an "official act of their office, committed in good faith" The townspeople have no liability to defend them, and if the town does so, it is entitled to re-imbursement of costs for legal services provided.
I can show the case law to prove what I just said.
However, if someone is merely a witness, no legal counsel is needed or should be furnished. They are able to obtain their own legal counsel, at their own expense, if they feel they need it.
Further, If the town pays to represent an official, and that official is found to have been in the wrong, and responsible for his action, the town has the right to seek reimbursement of fees paid.
So, take for example my petition to have the Court tell chief he could not vote on police matters as a selectman; I know it is a no brainer, but he chose to fight it, rather than just stop dealing with police issues.
The case went along its normal, path right up to the day of the trial. On that day, chief agreed to refrain from discussing, deliberating, or voting on any police or elderly affairs dept. issues, or any town employee issues that in any way affected himself or his family. Further he agreed to the Court issuing that as a Court Order, so that they could maintain jurisdiction.
At that point, He had been represented by town counsel for over a year. Justly! And even though the town could have demanded restitution for fees spent, they did not, and I did not ask for it. In fact I waive my right to ask for reimbursement for my legal costs, amounting to almost $8,000.00
From that point forward, the chief was not entitled to town provided counsel in this matter.
So when he violated that Order, and was found in contempt, he should have paid for his own counsel. When he decided to appeal the contempt order endlessly, he should have paid for his own counsel!
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to file an appeal to the NH Supreme Court? It has to be prepared, with semi hard covers, blue for appellee, red for respondant, bound on left side, and furnished to the court in 12 copies. But the time to research and prepare is significant as well.
And we paid for ALL OF THAT! Just for the Court to say, go home!
By the way, 2005 was also significant, because at the end of the year, the Chief negotiated a new contract for Town Counsel, that more than DOUBLED his retainer!
Quid pro quo? I don't know, you decide.
TO: Anonymous said...January 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Your Concern is what the Selectmen and their supporters use for an argument every time this debate comes up for discussion. They know that this is the BIGGEST WEAPON they have to keep taxpayers from exercising their rights.
No matter how strongly a taxpayer in this town feels about a town issue, the Selectmen direct it to the courts and the taxpayer backs down because he doesn't have the money to fight. Results: The political machine wins by default.
The Chief uses this weapon to bully taxpayers, because he knows the Selectmen will pay his legal fees. This warrant article will go a long way to put a stop to that "unwritten town policy" and the Chief’s bullying. It will also cut the budget for legal fees by sixty to seventy percent.
Selectmen will still have the right to town counsel, but would not be available to them for lawsuits not involving the town.
The question is: Why should Selectmen have the power to pay for personal lawsuits? Answer is: They shouldn't.
The way it is now, any taxpayer that brings a suit privately against a public official has to pay twice. Once from his own pocket and again through his tax dollars. It's like he is suing himself and that's not fair and it's not democracy.
The biggest problem when this warrant article passes is: We have to watch the Selectmen to make sure they don't pay those legal fees in a late night selectmen's meeting after we've gone to bed. (They have done it before and they will do it again.)
Perhaps we should amend this warrant on the floor to read: Any Selectmen that votes to pay legal fees for private lawsuits, must personally reimburse the Town and fined $1000 for each offense.
I think its time to pass this warrant article, in order to get some of OUR civil liberties and protection back.
What do you think?
Look, we all know why we post anonymously, and I am just as guilty as the rest of you. I dont want to go through the type of harrassment, and bullying, and intimidation that Mr. Acciard, and Mrs. Grant, and other have gone through.
We all know what goes on, we have said it here many times, and yet when it comes time to stand up and DO something, we all cower in front of our TV's because it is easier, than standing up and giving our chief of police another target to trash.
But, it really bugs me that I have to keep my mouth shut, and not criticize the things I see being doe wrong, for fear of my local police chief?
In America? What do we have here, the Gastapo, and chief is our Himmler?
Everybody knows that he is vindictive, we all have seen it with our own eyes, in meetings. We all have heard the jokes that if you piss off the chief you had better drive 20mph through town for the rest of your life.
But it is OUR fault! We let it continue, by electing ball less selectmen, who are either in his pocket, or afraid of him, and for letting him get away with things like taking away our vote.
This is a golden opportunity to right some awful wrongs, and start getting our town back on track.
And I, for one, when the curtain is closed will vote for this article! even though I will probably tell Phil when he calls that I will not.
To anon at January 16, 2009 10:18 AM
It certainly sounds like you are connected to the Town in some capacity. No one should expect their PERSONAL legal fees be paid for by the Town. If something happens in connection with their behavior in office, then the Town is liable as long as they knew they were going to do the bad deed or did not take steps to stop it.
The bottom line is, as long as the ChiefO is doing this stuff, the town is liable since there's a history and they are not trying to stop it.
If you don't vote for this, we are going to be paying for the legal fees of Consentino and Sapia using the Town insurance. So you decide, which side of the fence are you if you have to make a decision on what is the safer bet?
What happens to Lt Baldwin if the full-time police chief position passes?
The LT. can apply for the position of Chief, take another postion he's qualified for or choose to join Plaistow PD FT.
He would still be a full time officer, just not administrative.
He would be on patrol just like most other Lt. in NH.
On most forces, you cant even be considered for Lt. until you have at LEAST 10 years of service.
Baldwin made Sgt. with only 2 PT years, and 18 months FT.
Made Lt. 3 yrs later, how?
Please tell me what he did, above and beyond the normal duties of a police officer to attain such rank, so fast? Other than sucking up to Phil, I mean!
And does anyone know WHY the selectmen never advertised the position of Lt.? They just quickly slid Baldwin into it?
They violated town policy, by not advertising the Lt. position, WHY?
ooh, ooh, I know, I know!
Because if they advertised it, he might not measure up to the other applicants.
Remember he only had 7 year as a cop, and no education, at that time!
Thank God the BOs was Jack, Fred, and PHIL!!
Well Lt. Baldwin can apply but the way the warrant article is right now.
The Lt. will not qualify for the chief position. Because of the 15 years as a civic police officer. Hes been here for 12. So we can change this warrant or most of the town will vote it down if it gets on the ballot. Whom ever wrote this article
is trying to out both the chief and Lt.
So on town floor change the qualifications to 12 years, and an Associates degree!
But dont take your eyes off the ball!
Mark, and January 16, 2009 11:41 AM,
Thanks very much for your feedback. You've certainly given me something to think about regarding this issue. Certainly, I think the most compelling argument is the fact that we potentially end-up paying TWICE in these matters. That said, while I understand the past has put us in this position, I do worry about future ramifications of this particular warrant article.
I like the secret ballot idea. Just be sure to bring pens and paper so there is no excuse not to do it. Doing a secret ballot eliminates the intimidation factor.
At first, I Liked the idea of cleaning house with the chief and LT. I agree with the issues about the LT but after talking to many people, I found the LT is not as unpopular as the chief. Going after both of them is not going to work. I am proposing an idea that I firmly believe will achieve the objective of getting a new police chief.
First, you have to give up the idea of getting rid of the LT. Let's keep him in his place for now because trying to get rid of both the chief AND the LT will create too much opposition. Plus you could still end up with the LT as chief even if he isn't "qualified". It can still happen and then you've really screwed things up.
There are people who want the chief to go but will vote against this because they like the LT. So you indirectly give the chief support because people are not going to support it to protect the LT. In effect, the chief benefits and gets protection from this petition because the LT is dragged into it. But these same people would vote to get a new chief.
INSTEAD: Go into deliberative with the plan to change the article to say this:
To see if the voters will direct the selectmen to appoint a new person to the position of part time police chief to be hired on or before June 1, 2009.
Simple as that.
You can add in hiring requirements as well if you want. But if you just go after the chief and keep the current structure of a PT chief and FT LT, getting a new person as chief will keep the LT in his place and end the tyrrany.
Deal with the LT separately if you wish, next year. But just focus on the chief and I believe you have a shot. And doing it by secret ballot increases your odds. I really think this could work.
Why this is a winner:
1. Those present that support the LT but not the chief are likely to vote for it
2. Secret ballot lets everyone vote what they really think without giving chief the ability to take names for revenge.
3. Even the LT and the selectmen and the police officers would probably vote for this under secret ballot!
4. A new chief will keep the LT in his place and it will solve 80% of the problems.
If you insist on keeping the LT in the deal, it will never fly. I guarantee it. The chief is glad you pulled him into it.
Is that a money back guarantee?
We will see on the 31st how much support the Lt. really has. Until then, nobody can guarantee anything.
Post a Comment