Yes my fellow Atkinsonians, it is the Electioneering....... ooops, I meant,Election season again!
And we all know what that means?
Yessirree, buddy! Phone calls form the chief about the latest petition warrant article he wants defeated!
That extra sweet taste this year comes from the fact that the warrant article he wants to defeat, is a petition warrant article for a Full Time Chief of Police!
Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? The chief of police using town resources to intimidate voters into retracting their support for a warrant article that would affect his job?
Oh but this is Atkinson! And we all have seen that conflicts are only for the other guy, for the Harold Morse, the Teddy Stewart, the Barbara Stewart, NEVER for the Chief!
Here is what happened, as best as we can tell, at approximately 12:30pm today the petitioned warrant articles were handed in to the selectmen's office. By 1:40pm, elderly people in town were supposedly getting phone calls from the chief, asking them "How could you put your name on this?" and " Don't you know this will cost me my job?"
You read that right, ONE HOUR from submission to intimidation! Only in Atkinson!
Now rumor has it that the "official" story is that the chief asked, just after delivery coincidently, if any petitions had been submitted, and went and picked them up. Then the calls started!
IF ANYONE RECEIVED CALLS FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE ABOUT ANY POTENTIAL BALLOT ISSUES, CALL THE SELECTMEN'S OFFICE AND LET THEM KNOW!
Then please post it here so that we can let the public know of this abuse.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
134 comments:
I heerd this afternoon fr my neighbor he got called fr the Chief as he signed up for the petition for a full time chief. He was very upset.
Good news. The Citizen Petition Warrant Articles are submitted to Atkinson Town Hall. Madmen and Madwomen representing five different committees in town did run all over town and get signatures. This was done in snow and ice and freezing cold but with great success. Come to Town Deliberative Session January 31st. COME AT 5PM TO 7PM as they always leave citizen articles to dinnertime when normal people are exhausted and go home for dinner and only political hacks are left in the room and it turns into a type of perverted selectmens meeting! Come and disrupt that slime ball strategy. There ought to be a second day that deals ONLY with Citizen Warrant Articles in this town like they do in Derry. You think it is an accident they put citizen petition articles on the agenda when you want to get home to be with your kids or feed your dog? COME ON DOWN. Feed the dog and kids and THEN COME ON DOWN. With 30 normal citizens we can clean up the town. DO YOU GET IT?
Our petty officials are in FOR A BIG SHOCK today. The citizens have acted and the sparks will fly. Go to Town Deliberative Session in March so our hard work produces fruit instead of letting them change the language. Just get out of your soft easy chair and come and make a big difference. If you show up and vote this town is going to be cleaned up in a hurry. Am I reaching all of you? It is your best interest at stake. Are you upset with the latest tax raise? You can ZERO OUT some budget items and make an impact. YOU CAN SEND A MESSAGE.
Atkinson Town Deliberative Session is January 31st (not in March).
My neighbor told me the same thing. He said the person getting signatures warned him Phil would call, but he didn't believe it.
He does now!
How can he use his badge to scare people like that? I know it is wrong, but surely it must be illegal!
I'm worried about telling people to only show up between 5 and 7 at the delib. session. I'm afraid the powers that be will pick whatever time is best for their interests - that is, whenever the crowd is thin, or only filled with those on their side. They have no scruples, do not play fair, or even legally - and seem beyond reproach.
Did he drive the police car or an EA car and wear his uniform.
Also was he on EA time or police time? Can we see his meticulous time card for the week?
It's not a good idea to tell people what time to show up, unless you have a crystal ball. People need to do their duty and be there early.
Why was there no discussion here on what petitions would be submitted?
This is exactly the kind of political fight Consentino can't resist. I am of the belief he loves this stuff. He couldn't wait to start dialing for supporters. He will put everything he has into getting the wording changed at deliberative session. There will be police and elderly supporters and his henchmen giving people dirty looks.
The Tribune is going to LOVE this. The question in my mind is this, will enough people show up to deliberative session and stay and fight to keep the warrant article intact?
I think the lack of discussion reflects 2 things. First, there is a lot of agreement Consentino needs to go so not a lot of need to discuss that. Second, there is little trouble in getting signatures and no need to make it public knowledge what is coming for petitions. Why give Phil advance warning so he can try and stop it before hand?
If like last year there will be a mailing before the meeting listing the petitions.
Also, if like last year, the budget will come first. Then town submitted warrants. Then the citizen petitions, with the least favorite being last.
And a previous poster is correct, this should be a two day process. The one day process puts the citizen petitions at a disadvantage, and that is wrong.
And, I would not put a timeframe on when someone should attend. 1) No matter how painful, it is a citizens responsibility to attend the whole session, and 2) who knows what hairbrain warrants submitted by the town will show up. With the economy the way it is we should not be looking at town hall additions, new roads, fancy new qizmos or software, anything that is not really necessary or can wait.
This is so obvious. All of us that post here have watched Phil's own actions. We have seen him scream at people just for disagreeing with him. We have heard and read about his abuses of office and his harrassment of those who criticize him. We watched him describe in detail his lengthy investigation of Carol Grant, when she opposed him on the memorial. We even heard him say he called in the postal inspectors. We have heard him yell about Mark Acciard having a vendetta against him, when all he did was tell him he couldn't vote on the police dept.
In light of everything we have seen, heard and read, why do we continue to put up with this small town, small minded police chief who is little more than a bully with a badge?
Let us bring the PD into the 21st century, and let Phil concentrate on his elderly.
I have a question and you all can call me stupid.
But if the chief is part time why do we need four full time officers. Would it not be more beneficial to have 6 part officers with minimal benefits?
Please correct me if I'm wrong here -
The Chief is not a true police officer. He hasn't been certified in years and he is not permitted to carry a gun while on duty. This has been allowed persist because 1)he is part time so normal rules do not apply, and 2) The BOS over the years have not had the spine to fire him, though there has been more than adequate cause.
Now, if the town votes to have a full time chief, that person must be certified. By that fact alone, Phil is out because it is doubtful he could become certified.
So, asking for a full time chief seems to be the only way to force Phil out. Am I correct?
What I would like to see is a working chief, meaning, a qualified administrator who also does patrol work. That would justify the expense.
With regards to the officers bennies: I suspect there is little one can do there since they are unionized.
Finally, under no circumstances whatsoever, should the Lt. be considered. 1) He sued his employer (us) to get his current title, 2) he has a history of salary abuse, 3) His experience and education are limited, and 4) this town desperately a fresh face at the helm otherwise nothing will have changed.
You cant do that, and here is why;
There are 8360 man-hours in a year. All have to be covered. Our three full time patrol officers cover each shift Monday through Friday, currently.
The part-timers cover the three shifts on Sat. and the three shifts on Sun.
Currently there are 5 full timers, 7 or 8 part timers that work regularly.
Plus the part time chief of police.
Now do the math;
5 FT officers = 10,400 man-hours
PT hours = 8,000 man-hours
PT Chief = 1,300 man-hours
TOTAL = 19,700 man-hours
So we currently pay for enough man hours to have two FT officers on every shift, PLUS another FT, PLUS the chief.
However what we get is ONE patrol officer per shift.
Chief stepped way over the line this time. He used a telephone to call and intimidate voters who signed a petition that will cost him his job.
That should qualify as serious violation federal voter rights laws. I have submitted the question as a hypothetical to my federal prosecutor connection.
Hey Chief, I know you read this blog. You really step in it this time. You went after people who did not believe you were capable of doing what you did to them. Asta La Pizza Baby!
Sometime in the past couple of years or so I read a recommendation from the NHLGC, I think, that warrant articles be grouped by topic, regardless of whether they were put on by the selectmen or by petition, in order to allay concerns such as have been mentioned in this discussion. One of many things I have meant to mention to our Danville selectmen but never got around to. It would have made sense a couple of years ago when the selectmen had articles in favor of building a bridge at the front of the warrant, and a citizen petition article against the same bridge was placed at the tail end of the warrant.
But I don't think it was done that way (and is done that way) for any reason other than the selectmen's convenience.
They prepare their list of articles and label them A-Z instead of giving them numbers. They finalize the list just after new year's day at least a week before the deadline for petitioned articles. They drop out whichever ones they don't want to bring forward, and assign the remaining ones numbers from 1 up. Then when the deadline passes for petitioned articles, they see what came over the transom and add them to the end.
It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case in Atkinson. Not the best way, perhaps, but no ulterior motives.
Just get there early. Bring your knitting, your laptops, a book or whatever. Don't let them screw you out of this vote!
For everyone who didn't believe the chief was a bully;
You have seen a lot of evidence that he is, What are you going to do about it?
Are you going to let it continue?
I agree with the FISHYGUY that this may be a FEDERAL CRIME. Way more serious than the mail box stuff. This would be a crime against the people and not require a personal complaint. It harms all of us. The buttons need to bepushed now.
If I remember my rules correctly, You can make a motion to change the order of the warrent articles (this would then go to a vote). Then you do that "you cannot go back and change" motion, which is voted on... and it is done.
Please correct me if I am wrong.....
If any there were a time to stand up to this bully, now is the time. Painfull as it may be to sit there all day, one day is nothing in the big picture. I'm tired of his abuse as a police chief, and his childish behaivor. I will do my part as a citizen of Atkinson, and i will be there.
oK, i'm confused. Isn't this the guy who came into a select board meeting and spent 20 minutes screaming that Carol Grant was a Federal Criminal for putting fliers on mailboxes? Didnt he claim to have pictures, have spoken with the postmaster, and have called the postal inspectors service?
Well, Phil, isn't there a Federal Law about tampering with voters on ballot issues? Aren't there State Laws about electioneering? This article deals with his job, isn't there a Town code of ethics ordinance?
But I am sure the selectmen wont have the balls to ask him if he is making these calls and tell him to knock it off!
And then when someone finally does complain, it will be another lawsuit against the town, that we have to pay for because the town refuses to do anything about this bully.
Anyone have any idea how much he has cost the town in legal fees over the past 4 years?
For the edification of the readers of this blog, here is some State Law pertaining to this issue, notice sections I. and II.;
659:40 Bribing; Intimidation; Suppression. –
I. No person shall directly or indirectly bribe any person not to register to vote or any voter not to vote or to vote for or against any question submitted to voters or to vote for or against any ticket or candidate for office at any election.
II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.
III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include:
(a) Challenging another person's right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(b) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(c) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting at the proper place or time by providing information that he or she knows to be false or misleading about the date, time, place, or manner of the election.
IV. Whoever violates the provisions of this section or whoever conspires to violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.
V. This section is not intended to preclude prosecution or sentencing under any section of RSA 640.
And then, of course you have the ever violated ELECTIONEERING BY A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE!
659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees. – No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this section, "electioneer'' means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
So as you can see, the law is apparently an inconvenient piece of paper to your chief, but, as usual, good luck finding someone to make the complaint, or even discipline him.
The part time chief is not calling his supporters. He is calling voters who legally signed warrant articles and asking them to remove their names. Can anyone spell I N T I M I D A T I O N of registered voters prior to a legal deliberative session?
What is Mr. Sullivan doing to immediately suspend the chief?? What is Mr. Friel doing to immediately suspend the chief?? What is Mr. Childs doing to immediately suspend the chief? What are they doing to protect Atkinson voters?
RE: January 14, 2009 11:02 AM
Now THAT would make a good Eagle Tribune article.
Maybe getting him charged with Electioneering is next to impossible, but, the court of public opinion is very powerful indeed.
Clearly, it's a felony to intimidate a person into not voting for this article.
If a person is intimidated, they should call the FBI or the State Police. This matter is out of the jurisdiction of the BOS and the State of NH.
Herein lies the opportunity to have him arrested, if this is really happening.
Well, we're a ways from voting on the article. I believe the working theory here is that the chief is trying to get people to remove their names from the petition. If enough names are removed, no petition.
All it would take to stop this practice is for one or more of those called to in return call the Eagle Tribune. A front page story could have dramatic, and more immediate, consequences.
At least one person has posted here that they know of person who got a call. See if you can get them to make a call.
Calling a newspaper is not a solution, it's just drama. This mess will remain with us until someone actually addresses the illegality of the situaiton, with the feds.
I'm sorry to belabor the point, and I won't do so any further.
Getting the feds, or whomever, involved will take time, if they chose to get involved at all. If enough people call ET now, there could be an article as soon as Friday. I'm not saying getting the feds involved is not the right thing to do, or that an article will solve the problem. What it will do is make a hell'va a lot more people know about it sooner, cause some very red faces, and make things much more difficult for the chief at the deliberative session, which is just barely 2 weeks away.
It is a strategy to obtain quick and favorable results. Remember, the immediate goal is to get the petition on the Deliberative Session adgenda, get it passed reasonably intact, and on the March ballot. If enough people know what the chief is trying to do, and are fed up with it, the chief could be out of a job in March. You are not going to get outside involvement achieving the same goal in two months.
As I said earlier, this is a great story. It should be told far and wide, and quickly.
well then, have you called the newspaper yet?
Webmaster - can you put a banner with the dates of the Town Meeting and Elections, along with a link to these docs on your main page?
The citizen warrant articles have been posted on the Atkinson Taxpayers website.
http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/
TO: Anonymous said...
January 14, 2009 2:46 PM
No need to do that. It is already posted on this site:
http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/
RE: January 14, 2009 2:40 PM
I didn't sign the petition (knew nothing about it) and the chief did not call me.
So, it will take someone who signed, and got called.
Phil will get away with it again. He always does. He'll skirt the law and the paper may report it if some people get together and make an official complaint. But it is difficult to believe for me to believe he wont get away with it again. Sorry but you need some witnesses to come forward and file complaints with authorities if you think anything has a chance of changing. Otherwise, same old story. Phil knows his tricks work and he gets away with it time after time after time.
It does not take an official complaint for ET to publish a story. All it takes is a number of people who were contacted to call ET and tell them what happened.
Phil may get away with vote tampering, but he can't stop the story. Just having the story out there will help get the warrant passed.
It all depends, however, for a certain group of people to pick up the phone and call. They signed the petition. Lets encourage them to take one more action.
Forget state court. Someone needs to file federal charges.
He clearly violated 18 U.S.C. 1963.
Because he is the chief of police, the intimidation is implied. And those he called can testify to the tone actually being intimidating.
He probably violated state and federal law just by laying his hands on the petitions as he has no business, in the course of his duties as Chief to touch them.
And the fact that he allegedly then used petitions to then call and scare people.
Again, Chief, you really did it this time. Everyone you called probably did not believe the stories of you bullying people around until that moment.
Time to hang it up before it is too late. And this could be one more thing my good and honorable friend, whom you are driving out of town, as proof of you dishonorable intentions and pattern of behavior.
It is just too bad the voters of Atkinson did not have to stones to elect Board members who had stones too.
Alas, I live too far away now to just drive by and laugh at you.
To Anon at January 14, 2009 2:53 PM
The town may have noted the date and time of the town meeting and election, but it did not post the citizen articles.
So, I repeat, for the docuemtns, go to
http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/
This town does need a full time police chief i agree with that,But what i don't agree with is what is said on this petition. Not only is this trying to get rid of the chief but it is also says the Lt. Is not qualified for the position he holds and as a Atkinson resident who does do research and gets to know people within the town. I disagree with this completely. The Lt. Is very dedicated to this town. Hes level headed.takes his job seriously,does his job well..and hes not on a power trip.(yeah I know what your going to say oh he yelled at a meeting once, Hmmm seems to me we have all lost our temper ..we are all human) Puts 150 percent into this town.Cares about the citizens in Atkinson. And as far as the lawsuit please go to the Rockingham court pull the details of this lawsuit and make your own assessment. Atkinson should not lose such a dedicated hard working Police Officer. This I know from my own experiences with the Lt. He is available 24-7... I for one and a know a lot of other residents want our police chief to be familiar with the town and the citizens in it. In my opinion hes an asset to this town. and we lose him we will be losing a very hard working dedicated town employee.. Hes working on his degree. lets not let 3 years of civil duty keep him from serving the town hes been so dedicated to for 12 years. Thanks
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS FOR AN ARTICLE SUBMISSION
The Most Recent (1/07/2009) Planning Board Meeting
This Planning Board meeting dealt with the sending something to the ballot to designate only 4 areas (after being cut down by the building interests on the planning board) "prime wetlands", including the area where Hampstead Area Water Company has multiple wells.
When Tim Dziechowski asked Harold Morse, general manager of the business that OWNS Hampstead Area Water Company, if he would be stepping off the board under conflict of interest.
Now, remember; his company OWNS WELLS within an area that will be designated a PRIME WETLAND and could end up having extra protections under the ordinance, costing his company EXTRA MONEY to withdraw our water.
His decision? To STAY on the board, and vote on this matter, under the technicality that it was a "legislative" matter and not a "judicial" matter. I don't know what kind of crap legal decision allows a person with a DIRECT financial interest in a warrant article to vote on it, but please think about this.
Should a person who seeks to profit off the pumping of OUR water out of the ground be allowed to stay on a planning board when he will not recuse himself from voting on a manner which will directly HURT or BENEFIT his wallet?
Can you guess what the vote was? Even after being asked by other board members to make the vote UNANIMOUS to show solidarity as a board, what did Mr. Morse do? He was the ONLY VOTE AGAINST the ballot item. The ONLY one, even in the face of a vote by 75% of Atkinson voters that asked for a 150 foot barrier (this ballot item asks only for 100 ft.)..
He boldly voted AGAINST an item that should have caused him to step off the board, KNOWING that he was going to lose. Why would someone do this?
Because he believes he OWNS this town and the Atkinson Board of Selectmen. He truly believes NOTHING can happen to him, and that he is BULLETPROOF. Why is this allowed?
Atkinson Selectmen: Can you begin to stand up for us? Can you begin to address the fact that people who profit from the development of land IN TOWN dominate a board whose job is to protect the character of a town from overdevelopment and the exploitation of our natural resources? Is this too much to ask?
Let this be a wake up call to both the town and our government that this town and its people will not stand for this foolishness forever.
Please come to the town meeting, planning to stay as long as necessary, to protect our water from the ruthless expoitation of people that seek to line their own pockets from the exploitation of the resources that belong to ALL OF US.
Stand up for yourselves and let your voice be heard at the town meeting.
I have read the warrant article, and I dont see where it says that Lt. Baldwin is not qualified.
I think it is very well written, it states that we need a full time chief.
It lays out minimum qualifications that the town deserves for someone to fill that position.
And it lays out a process for the screening process. I believe that this provision was probably put in place out of distrust for the selectmen's hiring process.
I think the qualifications certainly seem reasonable.
I also think that the combining of duties for the new chief, is brilliant! That is the only way this makes fiscal sense. Plus the fact that, and even Lt. Baldwin himself would admit, that if you had a full time chief, you wouldn't need a full time administrative Lt., too much replication of duties.
But I don't see it attacking Lt. Baldwin in any way. Please explain.
I would think that no matter who applied, Lt. Baldwin would be the odds on favorite anyway because he has been here and knows the town.
I suggest to all Atkinson Residents...Read the Petition...Understand what its saying..and then if this is what you really want..(Be careful what you ask for)Then sign..but please understand what your signing..There is a statement saying To qualify for Lt. There is a minimum of 15 years as a Police officer. At least that's what I read.
Basically it says the Lt. Doesn't qualify for the chief position because of 3 years he lacks of being an officer and the degree he is working on getting...Sad town we live in for a man like Lt.to be sidelined like this. It would be a shame to lose such a hard working dedicated man over this two issues hes more qualified for this job then anyone else.
RE: January 14, 2009 8:50 PM
1) Sign what? There is nothing to sign. All the signing has been done, that is why the petition will be submitted as a warrant article at the Deliberative Session.
2) What is wrong with 15 years of experience? I think for the position as chief of police, 15 is a very good minimum. In the real world, to qualify for a serious management position requires experience, and the more important the position, the more experience needed. And, it usually requires a Bachelors degree, minimum. Requiring a degree is SOP for a great many jobs. Working on one does not count. I needed one for my first job. So did a great number of people. Black and White.
And, to have the selection process done by a body experienced in selecting law enforcement officials takes all of the politics out of it.
A very well thought out and written petition.
RE: January 14, 2009 9:02 PM
Yes, yes, we've heard all this before when the subject comes up. The Lt. walks on water. So, fine, try and get the Deliberative Session to amend the warrant so that the Lt. qualifies to apply. BUT, let him apply just like everyone else. Don't let us just assume he's next up. In my long experience working in the real world one thing I've learned to be fact is that you do not promote someone just because they are where they are. In almost every case where I've seen this done, failure follows.
This warrant, if not amended into gibberish, and passed at the polls, gives this town the opportunity to do it the way it should be done. Should we want any less? Let the LT. take his chances with every other candidate. If he is the one recommended, then it will be for the right reasons, not just because he's a nice guy.
You've got one thing right. This is a sad town. It is the laughing stock of every neighboring town. Things have gotten way out of control. Asking for a real professional to be chief and forcefully eliminating conflict of interest on the Planning Board is a good thing, a real good thing.
RE: January 14, 2009 6:55 PM
Mr. Morse has made it very clear the type of person he is, and where his interests are. Go to the Water web site. Read the PUC testimony. Then, read what the Town Administrator and Carol Grant pointed out to the PUC after the hearing. Read about HAWC's zoning violations. After reading this, did you expect any different from Harold?
The sense of entitlement the Lewis conglomerate feel towards this town needs to be tempered, badly. It is sad that a warrant article to demand a elected board was necessary to accomplish what should has been done long ago.
LT still has potential fraud charges for filing knowingly FALSE TIME SHEETS, assuming anyone every has the stones to do the right thing.
If Lt is so dedicated to Atkinson, and supposedly salaried and on call 7 days a week, why does he work part time for a neighboring police department?
Also Phil is his mentor. Would any one you hire someone he trained to run your business? How much of the "I am above the law" attitude does he share?
I could find out by putting a "Fire Phil" bumpah stickah next time I am visiting.
It doesn't look to me as if these petitioned warrant articles have been reviewed by a lawyer.
Chapter 105 governs the appointment of police officers. I don't think you can dictate to the selectmen what the qualifications are to be for an appointed chief.
Regarding the change to an elected planning board, we voted that in Danville several years ago. See RSA 673:2. The selectmen still get to a appoint an ex officio member to an elected PB. There are two ways to switch from an appointed board to an elected board, and the law says that the warrant article has to specify one or the other:
1) All other appointed terms end at the next town election, all seats are filled by election, and the terms are staggered to be 1, 2, or 3 years so that each subsequent year only 1 or 2 terms will be up for election.
2) All appointed members remain in office to the normal end, be it 1, 2, or 3 years hence. As each appointed term ends, the seat comes up for election for a full 3 year term.
FWIW we chose option 2) in Danville.
What bothers me about Lt. Baldwin is
1)He has stood by silently (except for suing for his own interests) while this chief has run over people right and left. Would you work under someone that treated someone this way? Clearly, he's operating on the theory that he's next in line, so he's supported the chief with his silence. Would you standby silently working under the Chief while he's done what he's done to people? I wouldn't, I'd resign and come out against him.
2)He was willing to screw the town over his compensation issue, essentialy double-billing the town while also receiving other pay. Anyone willing to do this has a little ethical piece missing and I don't want him as my next chief.
3)His demeanor scares me when I watch him chair the school committee. Some evidence of the big ego that one typically finds in politicians. We're trying to get rid of one egomaniac, do we really want to step right back into that again? How about somebody with some evidence of humility about them? We don't need a genius, we need a decent, hardworking person.
3)I saw him act really beligerantly to some drivers out on the street one day. I don't want a lack of courtesy after what we've been through all these years.
Maybe he's a decent guy, but he's a little too close to Chief Biggum Ego for my taste, let's not make this mistake twice.
To Anon @ 8:50;
It does not say that to qualify for LT. you need 15 years.
It says to qualify for CHIEF you need 15 yrs. experience.
And if I remember correctly, both the chief and Lt. Baldwin have said many times that he has over 15 years experience because of his time as a Marine Cop.
Ok, 15 yrs. experience is a very fair minimum for a senior management position. So is a bachelors degree. And I bet most applicants will meet those requirements.
And as for the "working on a degree" that has been going on for 12 years! How long does it take?
And would you want someone who takes 12 years to get an associates degree for chief?
Yes I worded that incorrectly Im sorry...The warrant article wants to do away with the Lt. Position and Have the chiefs position out of reach for the Lt. I Know Lt. Baldwin well Hes a Human being just like the rest of us! Hes a dedicated Hard working , compassionate, well balanced police officer. If you disagree with my statements, then apparently you have not taken the time to get to know The Lt. He puts his heart and soul into this town and if you cant see that then your an idiot.
This has nothing to do with the LT. when you hire someone for a job, you have requirements for the job. You do not tailor the job for the person you want to hire.
Atkinson has objective hiring policies in place. They should advertise for the job, and hire the best qualified candidate.
If you were looking for a doctor or a lawyer, and you had a number of candidates apply, you would take the most qualified candidate. You wouldn't hire your friend the divorce lawyer to get you out of a murder case. You hire the best available.
I think Mr. Acciard was right, LT. Baldwin should have the fast track, but if someone else applies with more experience, and education, it would be doing the town a disservice not to hire that candidate.
This article is not about the Lt. it is about the Chief.
And it does not eliminate the Lt. Job, it just means he would be a cop again, not an administrator. What is wrong with that?
Answer us this then;
- Why did he attempt to get extra money out of the town by misrepresenting the amount of his military pay?
- Why has he sat quietly by while Chiefy has run amok through town instead of standing up to him?
- Why has he yelled at or disrespected citizens at times around town according to several anecdotes?
To the Elderly that have been called, and to the ones who have received these types of calls in the past;
Can't you see that having a POLICE CHIEF, with his authority calling you to intimidate you into changing your vote, or even trying to sway your vote is WRONG? Yes, it is illegal, but it is WRONG! why would you defend that?
To the selectmen, you have now had people come into the town hall accompanied by the chief to take their names off the petition!
You knnow it is illegal for a dept. head to call people about a ballot issue.
You know it is against the town conflict of interest policy to call them when the issue affects his job.
You know the bullying is wrong.
When are YOU THREE GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS, AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF ATKINSON FROM THIS BULLY?
Here is the relevant Federal Law for those who care;
This is FAR ore serious than putting fliers on mailboxes!
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 245. Federally protected activities
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to
intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons
from--
(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service,
privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
(4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from--
(A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or
(B) affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or
(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to
intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through
(1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating
lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate--
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall
be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term ``participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly'' shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a
riot. Nothing in subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such
proprietor, with respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such establishment is located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually
occupied by the proprietor as his residence.
the term
``law enforcement officer'' means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``State'' includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
What I want for chief in my small town I live in is.....
1. Someone who knows this town.and the residents in it. with an open door policy so the resident are comfortable walking in with any issues. Someone who goes the extra mile for the citizens of Atkinson.
2. Someone who I know puts their heart and soul into this town. A fair, level headed. Human Being!!
3. I want my small town I live in to stay a small town and not be run like a city.
4. Atkinson is a safe environment to raise your family one of the few towns left where the word "neighborhood" still means something. I do not want that to change. This is why I CHOOSE to live here.
Lt. may not have the degree you think it takes to be The chief. or the 15 years. He brings something more important to Atkinson. The experience of being an officer in the same town for 12 years and who has better knowledge of the issues in this town then him? Nobody can deny the hard work he has given this town. So to try and out him is like a slap in the face if you ask me. Just my opinion of course!!
To Chiefe. It ain't over if youse get em to take down dem names. If you steel Jan 31st meetin we is acoming next year. This aint goin to shitter cause you scares sick old people. scream at em. You coulda have upgrade youseelf fer 15 years. You aint certifid to fire your gun you takes to meetings which is goin against them big laws. I sees you doin it on TV. You just litle fly on assend of cow thinks he somebody.
RE: January 15, 2009 9:13 AM Atkinson is a safe environment to raise your family one of the few towns left where the word "neighborhood" still means something. I do not want that to change. This is why I CHOOSE to live here.
OK, lets take a recent example, the abduction attempt near the Academy. That is a serious crime. Tell us, in your own words, what was the response of our crack, small town police department?
I'll let you in a little secret. This country is literally crawling with very good people with every quality you claim the LT's has, yet they are unemployed. The reasons vary, but being very good does not translate into job security anymore. And lets face it, the Lt's job history is not a glowing as you make it out to be.
So, let him apply just like everyone else. If he's so good, maybe he'll get the job. If not, he can try an be an asset to some other town.
And, how long has he been working on this degree, on our dime? And, is he working for an Assoc. or Bachelors.
The " attempted abduction" as you call it was nothing more then someone asking a child if they wanted a ride..No one tried to grab this child.no force was made toward this child. the child was simply asked if they wanted a ride. so how it was handled was fine with me and several other leveled headed residents of this small town..The Lt. has the experience I feel it takes to do the job at hand ..and we are all entitled to our opinions. Im not sure what more you would like him to do to prove his dedication to this town. whatever it may be he will never be good enough for you! I know i will not vote yes on this article for the simple reason that I respect the Lt. and the hard work he has done for this town and the residents in it. And I will be sure to spread the word!!!Thanks..
If the LT. was so efficient at his job, why did the chief find out about it from his in box? Not a real good indication of interdepartmental communications.
Doesn't matter. The warrant is what it is. If passed at the Deliberative Session unchanged and it makes it to the voters, they will decide.
If the decision is for a full time chief, the requirements outlined in the warrant will have to be followed. If the Lt. feels a certain entitlement to the job after that, let him sue us again.
why is everyone making this about the LT. It is about the chief.
If the Lt. gets the full time chief job. GREAT!
If the town gets someone with even more experience and education gets the job, then the town benefits even more!
But if we want professionals to deliver the services we pay for, then we have to hire the BEST we can find.
If we can find that best candidate in town fantastic., but if that candidate comes from out of town, perhaps that is for the best.
How can someone with a badge and a gun be allowed to call anyone in town concerning an upcoming vote about his job?
And why aren't the selectmen doing anything?
Why dont they EVER do anything to discipline the chief?
Anon January 15, 2009 7:33 AM
Stated this: you have now had people come into the town hall accompanied by the chief to take their names off the petition!
Can anyone verify this is true and if so, how many peopl?
If you really think the Lt. is the best man for the job, show up at the Town Meeting and modify this article to reduce the experience to 12 years and reduce the education to fit his. He's a better choice than who we have now.
Do that if you must have him BUT do not vote against this because if you do, we will be stuck with Phil and you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
This article is about getting a better Police Chief. Look at the bigger picture and vote for this.
Does anyone posting here believe that Atkinson does NOT need a full time chief?
If you believe that Phil is doing a great job as Police Chief, we are not talking about elderly affairs director here, but police chief, then state what he has done as chief, and why he is the best man for the job, and why this article should fail!
As a former selectwoman, Atkinson's first Director of Elderly Affairs, and as a retired high school civics teacher, the fact of Chief Consentino phoning petition signers to bully/harass/intimidate them for having signed the petition for a QUALIFIED full time Chief (which in effect, removes Consention as Chief) really is upsetting to me and of deep concern.
What type of person intimidates residents, especially senior citizens, who are merely exercising their petition and ballot rights as citizens?
The Chief's behavior is outrageous besides disgusting.
Upset over this illegal election intimidation tactic (which has happened before when there's been a ballot article about the police),yesterday I phoned the Atkinson Police Station and stated that I wished to file a Citizen's Complaint against Chief Consentino.
His wife Jody took the call and asked me what the complaint was about. I told her it was about the Chief phoning petition signers and harassing citizens, including the elderly, who had signed the ballot petition against him.
She then said she was putting me on hold. When she came back on the phone she stated that she had just spoken to a "senior officer"
(obviously Phil) and that they would not take or receive my complaint against the Chief.
Not surprised at the cover-up by a wife for her husband, I asked her why not and she told me that it would be a "conflict of interest" to receive or investigate the complaint.
It would seem that a member of the APD can break the law with impunity in Atkinson and the APD will cover for them.
Because of Phil's relationship with the County Attorney who has not acted on previous complaints against Phil (like his violating my rights by taping me over my objections and then erasing the evidence tape after it was subpoened since it proved his crime), it seems that for justice to prevail, it's up to the selectmen to at least suspend Consentino for abuse of his office for this latest instance of petitioner/voter intimidation.
For the record, none of the submitted petitioned warrant articles were my idea, were written by me or circulated by me for signatures. But that doesn't make me any less upset over the bullying, intimidation tactics being used against Atkinson residents.
"Not surprised at the cover-up by a wife for her husband, I asked her why not and she told me that it would be a "conflict of interest" to receive or investigate the complaint."
Carol, you should have asked to speak with someone who could take the complaint. However, nothing you say surprises me in the least. As said earlier, this all would make a great newspaper article. Lets shine some light into that pit.
To the person who wrote the petition please accept this advice: I expect you know the kind of reception that awaits you the 31st. I truly hope you are up to it, and that you can make a very good presentation. If speaking in public is not one of your strengths, please recruit someone who is. This is going to be nasty. We will need someone up there who can give as well as take it. Thank you.
Anyone who witnessed Consentino intimidating anyone over this warrant article should call the FBI, and no one would be subjected to this ever again. Anyone who assisted him in this is also guilty of a felony.
Aren't there any laws against nepotism in this town? If there were, Jody wouldn't be working there at all.
I have not had any issues with the current chief of police Personally, I do appreciate all the time he has put into this town. and the things he does for the elderly. I do believe its time this town has a full time police chief..I also think this article would have a better shot if your goal wasn't to out both the chief and the Lt. So when i am at the meeting and if the wording on the article does not change so that the Lt. qualifies to apply for this job.. and some how this makes it on the ballot.I will do everything i need to to educate the residents of Atkinson to what we will lose and not gain.Thanks..
No one would have taken that complaint at the PD. They can't, they work for this guy. Even if they did, it would be squashed by them. We live in a Police state and apparently, all the officers are going along with it. If any of them witnessed illegal behaviors and have not taken it upon themselves to report it to other law enforcement agencies, then they are party to it.
We need a whole new Police Dept if you ask me.
to anon January 15, 2009 12:23 PM:
i do not need your education about the chief. i've been schooled enough and will vote them both out if i can.
looking forward to your weak defense.
At one point we had a poster bring up the suggestion that we should just hire Plaistow police to handle low-crime Atkinson. Typically after hours and weekends the Plaistow crew handle emergency calls anyway.
Does something like make sense, we could even off load some of those cruisers included the dreaded clown car. This maybe a liberating moment.
RE: January 15, 2009 1:36 PM
There was indeed a long and lively discussion regarding it. Most were against it because of the size differential between the two towns. I suggested that merging with Hampstead would be a better fit. The towns are similar in temperament and their chief is well respected (what a concept).
I like that idea because it reduces duplication of effort, hence cost. However, Hampstead would have to agree with it, and they may not want us (damaged goods).
A good thing to explore, but short term, the propose warrant is the only way to solve a problem no one has been willing to do. The Chief's actions this week ARE YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of why this warrant needs to pass.
Even if he gets fired or arrested over this, we still need and deserve a FT, experienced Police Chief.
I should also add every time the suggestion of merging Atkinson PD with someone (Plaistow, Hampstead, whomever), we got the same rash of self serving praises for the good LT. Hey, he's a terrific guy, salt of earth. We're just supposed shut up and ignore his past transgressions. They don't matter, he's a dedicated servant, with a lot of masters. Ignore that man behind the green curtain.
Hail Dorthy. The wicked chief has got himself in a good pickle this time. Wonder what his blood pressure is?
The warrant article for a full time chief and elimination of the LT is, in my opinion, overly ambitious. I think people want to see a new, modern thinking police chief and given all the negative press he's gotten in the past few years, you have a shot at passing a warrant article to force the selectmen to hire a new police chief.
That assumes it will get to the voters. It will be highly difficult to get any version through Deliberative session cause Phil will call in all his obligated elderly and probably bring in about 100 people on top of the regular 50 to make sure the wording gets watered down.
Not only that but you will have all of the LT's supporters there and don't be naive to think the LT could not drum up another 25-50 people as well. These extra people are not necessarily supporters of Phil and may even support the idea of a warrant article that only removes Phil but leaves the Lt intact.
Assuming he does not scare off the citizen petitioners and kills it before it gets to deliberative session, I suggest a fall back position in deliberative of a warrant article that directs the selectmen to hire a new chief by june 1 2009 or something like that. Keeping it that simple.
Save the battle for the LT position for another time. Plus I would rather see him kept in his LT role for now rather than take a chance that allows him to become the next chief where he has learned all of Phil's tricks. this is risky.
Just having a new chief will fix a LOT of problems. If you got out of deliberative with just a warrant article for a new chief and just let the voters decide, it would be significant.
In the republic of Atkinson 2009
A face of big head and bully falls like Goliath
Good times approach you
No longer will you be enslaved
Nostradamus
Actually, this article will pit the Chief against the Lt.
I'm sure anyone pro LT. will want this modified and anyone pro Chief will want it defeated.
I think it will go thru in one way or another. Either way, getting Phil out is the main goal. This just splits up the team.
I think it an opportunity for the LT to oust the chief and grab it all. If Phil were the LT, it is EXACTLY what he would do.
But it doesn't really matter because Phil is going to get this petition withdrawn before it ever hits deliberative. He will call a bunch of people and have their names removed from the petition and it will all go away. You wait and see this prediction will come true. Phil is a master at this stuff and you guys are a bunch of rookies. Just another day at the office for Phil. You don't think your gonna pull this off against the puppet master do you? You aren't even in his league.
To Anon @ 12:15pm
I have to disagree.All of the officers I have met are professional, good humored, and competent. Most are embarrassed by their leadership.
Officer Lapham was an outstanding officer, as is officer Donnelly, Cammiliere, Ryan, Lam, Buco, and others I have met but can not remember by name.
Even my observations of Lt. Baldwin on the job, have been mostly favorable.
They do not deserve to be tarred and feathered for the failings of their boss.
If the article is damaged I am sure we will see a special town meeting in short order.
You mean WHEN Phil was Lt. He did it to Pete Crowley!
Has everyone noticed that Danville buttinsky Curt Springer is once again butting into Atkinson's election process by posting his unwanted self on our blog to comment on our warrant articles -- telling us what we can and can not do?
He continues to be desperate for attention.
Maybe the LT. can show him who's boss and help us get him ousted. That would get my vote.
Maybe call the Boston News Stations. After all, they know where Atkinson is now since they all came up when Brad offed himself on Academy Ave.
Those big city folk love "corrupt small town police chief" stories. Lets the pull out clips of "Deliverance" and cut some "Dueling Banjos" playing in the back ground.
Even more so if Chief is a registered republican. y'all know how much those big city liberal new peeps hate publicans.
To anon of "abduction was just asking a kid if they needed a ride?"
You really have to be kidding me? Even if the police thought that, they still needed to alert school authorities and parents. Better yet, Bigum Heado didn't even find out about it for several days, and by then 3 school days went by with kids walking home from school.
If your child almost was taken, wouldn't you be upset with the lack of interest?
Phil and Lt Baldwin are one of the same, and it is time for change. Wouldn't it be nice to ask questions without fear of recourse? Wouldn't it be nice to have a professional police dept without conflict of interest? Wouldn't it be nice to walk into a selectman meeting to ask questions without fear of Chiefo in the back calling in police officers to pull you over when you leave the selectman meeting?
Truth , Honesty, and serve the public. That is what i want. I would imagine anyone here would want the same thing. Right?
I'll be there to support the LT. It shouldn't be too hard to fix this with all you deers making circles in the snow. I'll be there
next year etc etc etc as long as it
takes to do whats right. Has anyone really seen the ghost pettioner and the Chief enter town hall? I smell fishgutz all over this blog.
Yes, several people saw the town employees (including chiefO) helping the person write a letter to get the signature off. Lots more people to be indicted.
Do I have this right? Your neighbor saw the Chief and the little old lady go to town hall to
change her position. Now your neighbor remembers seeing all these town hall employees including but not limitted to the Chiefo actually write the letter for her and they are all being indicted? Several people were there
as witnesses? Hello? Nice try but lets stick to facts and we'll get somewhere.
evidently it was phil, jody, helping this guy write his letter to the selectmen, in the presence of the TA and Barbara Snicer!
That certainly sounds like coercion
Were they helping or just present?
Were you there or not?
We seem to start sentences with evidently and apparently etc etc...
I'd like to have a first hand witness post facts instead of someone who knows someone who has a
2nd cousin that had a neighbor who
heard that all these events are happenning and thinks this might be what happened. Lets deal facts not maybes.
Consentino, his wife, Barbara Snicer and Mr. Angelo helped Everet Smith write a letter to the selectmen to get his name of the petition.
To Anon @ 5:08;
We post that way because to give any more information would tell the chief who we are, and then WE would get calls, and certified letters, and followed, and everything else. And frankly we are scared to put our families into his path of vengence.
Are the letters to the selectman going to be published? After all the petitions with the signatures are circulating around town.
As soon as the selectmen release them they will be up on the Atkinson Taxpayers website, I am sure!
Here is the State Law directly from the MODERATOR training manual at the Secretary of State's office;
Electioneering means to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office.
RSA 659:44
http://nhvotes.sos.nh.gov/mod/lesson/view.php
No election officer shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties.
Any person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 659:44
No public employee shall electioneer while in the performance of his or her official duties or use government property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines, vehicles, and computers, for electioneering.
Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
RSA 659:44-a
(Having read a lot of the commets)
Might it not be wise to amend the article to eliminate any reference to the Lieutenant? Bill does have a lot of supporters who would oppose the article as is, but would probably support it if amended. If the intent is to sack the Chief, I think it might be ore effective with an amendment.
I agree with the last post. I for one will vote it down as it stands!!
What the warrant says is that the new chief will take over the chief's duties, and those that the LT. now does.
1) That is what we should expect from a full time chief. Otherwise, it is that same as hiring a full time chief to do a part time chief's duties. That does not make sense, does it?
2) No where in the wording do I see a request for the Lt.'s dismissal. Why is everyone assuming that? You make it out as an either/or situation. I see it as both.
Think of this as an opportunity for the LT. He can focus on other necessary tasks that are not currently being done.
As one poster said, keep your eye on the goal. Don't vote against it just because you "think" the LT will be gone.
It doesn't mention the Lt. now. It just lists minimum standards for a new chief to meet.
You guys are pissed because the Lt. doesn't meet those standards, apparently.
So the problem is not the standards, but the Lt.'s lack of education and experience.
So if that is the issue, on town floor amend the standards downward.
Everyone who has viewed the video knows the Lt. was engaged in some conduct and billing that lacks ethics. I want an honest police chief that is fully qualified. I intend to get that.
Honest, truthfull, and a person whom has not sued the town to get his or her position. That is a person that i want in the position of police chief. We don't need anymore spoiled brats in our town government.
The qualifications listed for a new FT police chief in the citizen petition are ones for a larger police force. They are not accurate for a small town. They would acceptable for Salem, Derry and Plaistow.
What is all this about the Lt. suing the town?
when did that happen and what were the facts?
and what is this about trying to bilk town for more money?
I want answers before delibrative session please.
Go to www.atkinsontaxpayers.org and read all the documents about the lawsuits regarding the chief and LT.
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.
Does anyone else assume that, given the town mandate appoint a part time chief in June, they will just appoint Phil?
Anyone who is anti_Consentino should vote for anything that give us a FT Chief.
Anyone who is pro-Baldwin will gain nothing if you vote against this. The Chief is in Baldwin's way as long as he's here, plus Baldwin can't take a PT Chief position over a FT position (or maybe he would, but why would he?).
In my opinion, the main point here is to make the Chief's position FT and get rid of him. After that, if people want to settle for the Lt. they can change the article to suit his experience, BUT it is no guarantee that he'll get the job.
Why don't we do this - - amend this article to change the Chief's postion to a FT ELECTED position?
because that would not take effect until NEXT YEAR when we elect his replacement.
do you want another year of the bullying, the screaming at critics, the lawsuits, and legal fees, just because his ego is too big, to do what is right for the town?
We could have a special election to elect a new FT Chief and ammend the article accordingly.
I'd rather not wait a year, but would pay to get rid of Consentino, it's bound to be cheaper than having him squander the police budget, or pay any more legal fees, or pay for more vehicles, or pay for him to drive two vehicles home each night, or pay for the Lt.'s salary for camp, or pay for desks in the john, or pay for birthday cards.
Shall I continue?
Let's discuss the issue of an elected Chief vs. an appointed one, a discussion on just this issue, exclusive of other issues. Do you think it has merit? What are the pros and cons?
On one hand, electing one would give the power back to us. We would not be in this position forever as we are now..
On the otehr hand, who would apply if they had to run every two years? That might thin the herd.
If we made it elected, maybe the term could be set at four years.
I think that 15 years is the right amount of expereince, I think it's a minimum. Why are people always willing to settle for these deadbeats? I want my tax dollars spent wisely, on the best people, on the best quality goods and services that I can get.
The Salem Chief has over 25 years experience, do you hear this BS coming out of his dept.? How many years does Plaistow, Dnaville, Kingston, Newton Chiefs have? If anyone has these numbers, I'd like to know what they are.
I've had more than enough of under qualified public servants, thanks.
Why should we settle for less?
"Let's discuss the issue of an elected Chief vs. an appointed one"
It would turn into a popularity contest and not assure a qualified person would be put into the post. Remember, to be a real, qualified chief, he must have the certified training and qualification. How many of our currently elected officials would be qualified to carry a gun How many have gone to the police academy?
No, sorry, electing a chief will not be in the best interests of the town. You want someone who has the experience, training, education, temperament and certifications commensurate with the job.
Phil only has the experience. Certainly not the temperament. Argue all you want, the Lt. does not have the experience and education.
The PD is broken. Time to bring in a pro to fix it.
The other problem with electing a chief, is that the single largest voting block in town is the elderly, and phil drives them to the polls!
now I am sure in light of the fact that he was so quick to electioneer, in calling signers, that there is NO electioneering going on during the ride to vote, right?
BULLSHIT!
To everyone who posts here anonymously;
You state that you do this to avoid retaliation by the chief, but dont you see, how huge a problem that is?
If all of you know that you would be harrassed by a bully with a badge, then why dont you all band together, and he couldn't do anything!
He wins because noone stands up to him, and when they do WE let him rip them to shreds for it.
A new Full time chief is going to cost us a fortune in tax dollars!!
I will never support this approach because the cost is going to be like $100K per year when you add in salary and benefits. Unless of course you get some loser to take a lower salary and then we've fixed nothing. We will cost ourselves a lot more money just to get rid of one individual. Look at it this way, you'd pay an extra $80K per year for a FT chief, over 12 years is almost $1 Million. As much as I want change, we should not spite ourselves, financially for it. Now we're not thinking clearly.
I say we keep the current structure and amend the current warrant article because it will not get out of deliberative session. You have to take out the LT component and get him to support it. How might you ask?
I've been doing some homework and the point is well taken that RSA 105:1 says that appointed chiefs serve at the pleasure of the selectmen.
Also mentioned was an advisory warrant article to the selectmen. I am now firmly convinced that legally, this is as far as we can go because we can't just get someone fired by voting on it. Mr. Springer's points are on target (like it or not). After I consulted with a lawyer friend, she pointed out numerous holes in these citizen petitions, not just because their intent is sometimes unclear, but because of the way they are worded. I appreciate the people who put these forward. The bad news is, without getting legal advice, most or all of these petitions are likely to fail for one reason or another.
Here is my final recommendation, and I suggest you get a lawyer to proof it: In deliberative session, change the petition wording to be advisory to the selectmen:
-----------
To see if the voters will advise the selectmen to appoint a new, fully qualified and certified, part time police chief by June 1, 2009.
------------
That's about it. Simple, clear, easy to follow. Since this appointment serves at the pleasure of the selectmen, the selectmen need a majority of voters to send them the political message that it is time for a new police chief. If they fail to follow it, then we saw what happened when a special vote had to be convened for the water issue and the Vietnam memorial. While it took a lot of effort, those special meetings worked and the voters finally won. If the selectmen fail to appoint a new chief, then a special meeting can be arranged. It worked the last two times. The Selectmen will realize they face another special meeting if they don't do as their told.
I make this suggestion because the wording in the current petition is flawed and I completely think you have to take the LT out of this equation. Plus, you will get the LT and his supporters to vote for it when using a secret ballot.
If we could all agree on this single objective at deliberative session, and it is done by secret ballot, you may have a chance to get the town to vote on the issue. If you have too many tweaks to it and too many separate votes on it, your support will run out of steam. Make one change, make it by secret ballot and get it in front of the voters.
"A new Full time chief is going to cost us a fortune in tax dollars!!"
A part time chief has cost us a fortune in tax dollars, and considerable embarrassment. Sounds like a good trade to me.
I would rather pay for a full time police chief, rather than paying for the lawyers that have to keep Phils head out of his .......
But neverless, your ideas of amending the warrant to have a higher chance of success? Something to throw around.
To anon January 19, 2009 1:41 PM
What is wrong with you?
Read the fn article, it replaces the PT bonehead thief and the FT LT> with one FT position.
Re: Correction to my Jan. 15, 11:38 a.m posting:
For what it's worth--- with truth being the only true worth--- Atkinson Police Detective Ferrar (sp?) today told me that it was he, and not Phil Consentino, who had told Jody Consentino last Tuesday not to take my Citizen's Complaint against Phil for harrassment of petition signers.
The timing is rotten, and the warrants are important. However, Webmaster asked for a article to be posted signifying the threat of the proposed truck terminal. Didn't happen. It is still buried in another topic.
There was also another post today describing an important hearing coming up Wednesday in Concord regarding a change in state law that would give towns more control over large water withdrawals, an issue that we've been fighting for, for over 2 years. That entry disappeared.
The warrants are important. But, please, lets not forget the other fight that has been going on for a long time that affects a great many of us. Don't let the powers to be use the warrant issues to mask another serious threat.
The PD should take every complaint, he has no right to turn you away.
I apologize to the forum. A post was not deleted. I just had trouble finding again amongst all the other warrant issues.
I'll rephrase what was said. Tomorrow a hearing will be held in Concord on a bill presented by Rep. Garrity that will change wording in the state law that prevents towns from having a say in large ground water withdrawals.
If passed, the ordinances Atkinson already have in place to protect our ground water will be more enforceable. We will have a legal say in how our ground water is used,
The hearing is tomorrow,Jan 21 at 1:30 in Room 301 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. A good showing of Atkinson residents supporting these changes would be welcomed. If you are able to attend, please try to attend. Thank you.
Blogmaster, if you could, please put this announcement at the top of the blog at least till tomorrow afternoon so the word of the hearing has a better chance of being seen. Thank you.
So Rep Garrity is trying to help us? I thought from this blog that he was EVIL. I am glad to see the truth has been spoken.
I know, shocked me to. Maybe this is first of good things to come.
get the chief out leave the lt alone if you dont you will not get the bum out
What a well written, capitalized and punctuated sentence.
The LT. is fair game. His hands are not lily white. He most certainly would not hold an equivalent position in the private sector with his education and experience. Why should he in the public sector?
OK, now this is where we hear how dedicated he is, how nice he is, how giving he his. Well, these are not typically listed as job qualifications.
Post a Comment