Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Town Officials unhappy with response to ice storm

From the Eagle Tribune;

NH town officials unhappy with response to ice storm
By Jarret Bencks
jbencks@eagletribune.com

Hampton officials are so unhappy with Unitil's response to last month's ice storm, they're asking voters if they want to establish a municipal utility.

Local officials haven't taken such drastic measures, but many are upset with the utility's response and they have a lot of questions.

Officials in Plaistow and Atkinson, where Unitil is the primary power provider, have begun to review the response to the storm from town emergency crews and the utility provider.

The state's Public Utilities Commission will conduct its own investigation into all the state utilities' performance in the wake of the crippling storm. That storm left hundreds of thousands of Granite State residents in the dark for days.

Power supplies are state controlled, but towns do have some options if they aren't satisfied with their provider.

One option is to go to the PUC and request investigations into specific incidents.

A PUC investigation could result in fines against utility providers or add new requirements for the company, such as requiring them to add more staff.

Another, and perhaps more dramatic, option is to try to take control of the power supply municipally. That would mean the town would manage, staff and monitor all town power operations.

"It would be a significant change to how it is done now," said Meredith Hatfield, the state's consumer advocate for utility customers. "The power supply would not be regulated by the PUC anymore. All budgeting and management would be done by town management."

The town would have to purchase the wires and poles, which could be difficult if the utility company isn't willing to part with its customers.

"It's a potentially lengthy process," Hatfield said.

Unitil officials said they will encourage an open dialogue with towns and residents as they consider their power supply options, according to George Gantz, Unitil senior vice president.

"We think they will come to the conclusion that the operations and services we provide will be the best option," Gantz said, "but we don't want to dissuade people from asking questions."

Three towns in New Hampshire operate municipal power supplies — Ashland, Littleton and Wolfeboro.

Atkinson selectmen and town emergency officials will meet Thursday to discuss the response to the storm from the town and the utility company.

"It was a concern of ours at the time and it still is," said Paul Sullivan, chairman of the selectmen. "We've got to review what happened."

Plaistow selectmen plan to meet with emergency officials to review and discuss Unitil's response, town officials said.

"We have the same concerns most towns had," Selectman Dan Poliquin said. "Communication was a definite problem; information given to us was not accurate or on a timely basis at all."

Selectmen have discussed having representatives from Unitil come in for a public meeting to explain their emergency process and priorities to the public, Poliquin said.

The PUC sets power rates for utility customers. Unitil has estimated the ice storm cost the company $10 million. Poliquin said he hoped the PUC would use its power to prevent the expenses from being passed on to residents.

"It appears that is a possibility, and that really shouldn't be happening," he said. "They should be able to deal with that through their insurance or the federal government."

Since the ice storm, Unitil has set up an emergency information center, intended to directly link town officials to the company's operations center.

The company will now deploy crews to area towns before a storm begins to expedite repair times. Unitil services parts of Atkinson, Danville, Derry, Kingston, Londonderry, Newton and Plaistow.

The utility hired Bob Yardley, former chairman of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, as a consultant in internal assessments of the company.

The company sent a letter of apology last week to customers for the prolonged power outages and communication problems that came up.

"We are well aware of the frustrations of customers. It was a lengthy outage; it's a logical reaction," Gantz said. "I think things will settle down and we'll all learn some things from this process. We will all be in better shape in the future."

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Webmaster: Please post this as an article submission:



These bills are being heard on January 14th, 2009. Two of them are very bad. There is no time to write LTEs or much else except spread the word via email and or Blogs.
These are some of the small but sneaky cuts being made to undermine the taxpayer revolt that is anticipated at town meetings.

HB 0072 would increase the number of people needed to request a secret vote at town meetings in some cases to as many as 50, from 5 as previous law provides. I can't see as anyone would have time to gather 50 signatures in the 5 minutes between voice and show of hand votes! I cannot imagine what Ms Patten (R) is thinking with this bill.
CNHT feels that the passage of this bill would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Read the full text of the bill here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hb0072.html

Or below:

HB 72 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0243
06/03
HOUSE BILL 72
AN ACT relative to requesting a secret ballot at a town meeting.
SPONSORS: Rep. Patten, Carr 4
COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government
ANALYSIS
This bill increases the number of voters required to request secret balloting and secret ballot recounts at a town meeting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
09-0243
06/03
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
AN ACT relative to requesting a secret ballot at a town meeting.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Secret Ballot. Amend RSA 40:4-a to read as follows:
40:4-a Secret Ballot.
I.(a) At any meeting of a town with a population of more than 500, [5] 50 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot. Upon receiving such a request, the moderator shall conduct the vote by secret “yes-no’‘ ballot.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the request of [5] 25 voters who are present, the moderator shall conduct a recount on any vote taken by secret written ballot under subparagraph (a). The recount shall take place immediately following public announcement of the vote taken providing that the vote margin is not more than 10 percent of the total vote cast. There shall be no fee required for a recount under this section.
II. At any meeting of a town of a population 500 or less, [3] 10 voters who are present may request secret balloting or recounting as provided in paragraph I.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.


PLEASE ATTEND THIS HEARING TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL

HB0072 will be heard on January 14, 2009 at 11:30 AM in Room 301 of the Legislative Office Building.
---

HB 0053 would exempt certain government agencies from having to release information under the RSA 91-A “Right to Know” law and that would just about prevent us from knowing ANYTHING.
CNHT feels that the passage of this bill would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Read the full text of the bill here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hb0053.html

Or Below:
HB 53 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0090
01/10
HOUSE BILL 53
AN ACT relative to the definition of “public body” under the right-to-know law.
SPONSORS: Rep. Casey, Rock 11; Rep. J. Garrity, Rock 6
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill clarifies the definition of “public body” for the purposes of the right-to-know law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
09-0090
01/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
AN ACT relative to the definition of “public body” under the right-to-know law.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Right-to-Know Law; Definition of “Public Body.” Amend RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) to read as follows:
(d) Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission[,] or committee[, agency, or authority] of any county, town, municipal corporation, school district, school administrative unit, chartered public school, or other political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.



PLEASE ATTEND THE HEARING TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.

HB0053 will be heard at 1:00 PM on January 14, 2009 in Room 208 of the Legislative Office Building.
---

HB 0135 would make government accountable for not complying with 91-A Right to Know Laws, that is, if there is anything left of 91-A by that time.

CNHT feels that the passage of this bill would be beneficial to the taxpayer.

Read the full text of the bill here:
http:// w ww.ge ncourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hb0135.html

Or below:
HB 135 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0458
01/04
HOUSE BILL 135
AN ACT relative to remedies for violation of the state right-to-know law.
SPONSORS: Rep. W. O'Brien, Hills 4; Rep. Rowe, Hills 6; Rep. Splaine, Rock 16; Rep. L. Ober, Hills 27; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
ANALYSIS
This bill requires a court to invalidate an action of a public body or agency taken at a meeting held in violation of the provisions of RSA 91-A. Current law does not mandate a court to invalidate such action.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
09-0458
01/04
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
AN ACT relative to remedies for violation of the state right-to-know law.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Right-to-Know Law; Remedies. Amend RSA 91-A:8, II to read as follows:
II. The court [may] shall invalidate an action of a public body or agency taken at a meeting held in violation of the provisions of this chapter[, if the circumstances justify such invalidation].
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2010.



PLEASE ATTEND THIS HEARING TO EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL

HB0135 will be heard on January 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM in Room 208 of the Legislative Office Building.
---
It is very important that you attend these hearings to express your opinions. Two of these bills would seriously change the way you interact with your local government. The other would make sure 91-A laws are enforced

Anonymous said...

though this interests me, putting the entire bill here is counterproductive and difficult to tell where the bill ends and where the commentary begins.

put your comments here then put a link to the proposed bill.

Anonymous said...

Has anybody looked at their UNITIL bill yet? Either this is an outrageously over estimated bill or something is really wrong especially when I have not used power for an entire week in December.

Anonymous said...

RE: January 12, 2009 8:49 AM

You're absolutely right. The post is a tough read and I speculate will be ignored by many.

A summary of the bill, where to find the whole bill, and then commentary would have been far more effective.

Anonymous said...

People. I just read the bills and there is no more serious threat to our 'live free or die' in NH than what they are trying to take away. We need easy access to a secret ballot process. And our so called state rep is trying to take away the right to know law which is gets us info to protect ourselves. He was elected to represent us. Who is he protecting and whose interests are his real concern. I am going to call and deliver a strong warning.

Anonymous said...

No calls to the elderly got done during the ice storm. How sad. Then a big lie that it WAS done. Not sad. Just an outright lie. Ask around. Sullivan can investigate THAT town failure along with the way the electric people left me in the dark for 13 days.

Anonymous said...

Paul Sullivan is saying that ALL the elderly were checked on.

Anonymous said...

There is no bold text, no strikeouts and the comments blend in so that when reading this thing, one cannot distinguish what's what.

If you cannot post effectively, have someone else do it for you.

Anonymous said...

Article Submission: from the NH Insider

Why Not Remove The Name "Gerrity" From The Legislature
And I thought Atkinson NH’s knucklehead part time Police Chief Phil Consentino, subject of endless lawsuits against that town, was the only problem child Atkinson had. (It must be something in the water – let’s not go there right now.)



Nope, State Representative Jim Gerrity has popped up as a “presenter,” or as they call them in the State Legislature, sponsor, of a questionable piece of legislation aimed at, of all things, the Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A.



I say “presenter” instead of sponsor because a sponsor of a bill would seem have a reason for doing so. There is no reason whatsoever anyone would want to sponsor a bill such as Jim Gerrity has done if not for the want of mischief, in this case future lawsuits by taxpayers aimed at acquiring public information.



Here is the meat behind Rep. Jim Gerrity’s inspiring piece of legislation. He wants to remove the words “agency or authority” from the types of government bodies or subdivisions of the State from the law as it exists now.



Since this makes no sense it must have another purpose and from my desk it looks like trouble, all in the name of?



Pick a law, almost any law, and the purpose of that law will be laid out in the first few sentences. Below is a sample of some simple, basic statutory language regarding State Records and Archives, this bill would affect.



5:30 Duties of Director. – The director shall, with due regard for the functions of the agencies concerned, and subject to the approval of the secretary…
I. Establish standards, procedures, and techniques for effective management of state records.

RSA 5:33 Agency Heads. – The head of each agency shall:



The list of state laws affected by this is endless.



So what in the world is wrong with having the word Agency used to describe a political subdivision, which is what they are. Why not remove “political subdivision?”



I won’t even bother with Rep. Jim Gerrity’s presenting this proposed bill to remove the word, “authority” from RSA 91-A as well because that makes no sense either.



But it must be the desire of some “agency” to have itself seem to be removed from the public’s right to know. That will take some ferreting out.



And isn’t this why we have the Right to Know Law in the first place? Not only is RSA 91-A the law in NH, we amended the state constitution almost thirty years ago just to include it.



Some elected officials hate that.

Anonymous said...

Here are facts from my area. Hope Listro 79, not called by elderly affairs, Mrs. Goldstein (77) not called by elderly affairs, Pat Goodridge, not called by elderly affairs, Carol Davis, not called by elderly affairs, Erma Brown (83) not called by elderly affairs BUT SHE DID CALL THEM! Need I go on or is the BIG lie obvious?

No calls by elderly affairs in Atkinson. Shame, shame on ALL OF YOU. Bigger shame for lying about it to attempt a cover-up. The lie shows what you are made of. And it stinks.

Anonymous said...

OMG!!!! You cant name names!

How can Phil keep up pretenses when you can state facts?

Oh I forgot, facts dont matter! Those people probably have a "vendetta" against him!

Thats why they gave their names to you. And You must have a vendetta against him, thats why you are complaining. Probably from a ticket he gave you 20 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, Paul Sullivan (once again) doesn't know what he is doing or talking about, and the Chief (once again) is intentionally misleading us. How long before the taxpayers of Atkinson get rid of both of them and Fred Childs?

Remember: A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN. All we need is a new broom. (Works well for "SPLATTING A SPIDER AND SNAKE “ too. :)

Anonymous said...

So in the end who pays for all of the repairs the UNITIL customer or does UNITL have disaster insurance for such an event?

My bill has roughly a $5 dollar charge to repair for the power outage.