On Saturday, as we all know, there were a number of citizen petitioned warrant articles on the warrant. Three of these were controversial; The Full Time Chief article, the Expansion of Elderly Affairs Article, and the Restriction of Legal Fees issue. We will address each of these in turn;
PETITION TO EXPAND ELDERLY AFFAIRS;
The interesting thing here was that Jack Sapia, immediately upon return from lunch, and after extended conversation during lunch with the chief, and Frank Polito, made a motion to pull this article and the Full Time chief article ahead for immediate consideration. As extraordinary as that was, what happened next was even more so, Elderly Affairs driver, Bill Anderson, immediately popped up to call the question, even before the moderator had recognized the question.
So, we wonder what is so threatening about this article that sought only to expand, and codify elderly services? Why couldn't it be debated on town floor? Well lets look at the article;
1.)The director would have to post information on outside programs available to seniors.
Thats not scary, unless you have a current stranglehold on information that is disseminated to your single largest voting block.
2.) The director would have to provide services to anyone over the age of 60.
Thats not scary unless you are not already doing that. Although the chief claims everyone over the age of 55 is eligible, we heard from Mrs. Goodrich about how SHE was unable to obtain a ride to the doctor. And there have been other stories of a similar nature over the years. But again, if, as the chief says, he is already doing this, where is the threat?
3.)The director would have to post information on available services in a conspicuous place in the town hall.
Thats not scary, again, unless you want to be the sole contact point for any elderly person to obtain services. God forbid, people could get services without you, then they might not need you anymore.
FULL TIME CHIEF WARRANT ARTICLE:
This article has been discussed since 1993! In 1993, NH Police Standards and Training Council did a survey in town, and determined that when the town got big enough to warrant a 5th full time officer that full time officer should be a full time chief. In 2000, Steven Lewis filed a citizen petition warrant article very similar to the one presented this year. This article has been talked about for years. So Why couldn't the people debate it?
Could it be because the town was served with notice of an impending federal civil rights suit tow days prior, and it appeared in the paper the day before, and God knows someone in the room couldn't have THOSE allegation talked about on town floor!
RESTRICTING LEGAL FEES:
This is an article that should have appealed to every taxpayer in town. But to the TOWN OFFICIALS and TOWN EMPLOYEES WHO AMMENDED IT AWAY TO NOTHING, It mattered greatly that this not go to the ballot, because then they would not have FREE Taxpayer paid for legal counsel whenever they do something wrong.
No matter how you slice Saturday's meeting, the people should have been able to have an open debate about the issues. If, after debate, the majority of the people wanted to destroy the articles, then fine, but to close off debate, shows a cowardice, and fear of the subjects at hand, and the ensuing debate, that should make every resident think about who they have voted for in our town.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Two things need to happen next.
1) Get the articles signed again and re-submit them to the town for a special meeting.
2) Get the court to prevent the BOS from spending taxpayers money on legal fees on Marks case.
For Frank to allow someone to move the question while people were standing in line to talk, that is not the act of a moderator. It is the act of a manipulator with an agenda.
So everyone is happy to have a police chief, whose job it is to enforce the law who;
Is in contempt of court for violating a court order.
Who admits to falsifying sick time vouchers for the LT. that cost the town $6,000 over the six years he admits he did it.
Who admits to calling elderly people who signed a petition, intimidating them into trying to withdraw their signature.
Who has been ordered by the State to stop bullying harrassing and intimidating his own police officers.
Who has verbally destroyed anyone who has criticized him for the last 5 years.
Who has cost the town tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs over the last 5 years.
Who lies to the town about his elderly affairs program, his donation accounts, his police dept.
This is what we want in a police chief?
Apparently so. Nobody was at deliberative to indicate otherwise. Nobody seems to show up at budget committee meetings and other meetings during the year and does their homework before deliberative. Where were all the people who signed the petitions?
In my opinion, this was an exact carbon copy of last year. Many people that Leon has helped the last few years felt obligated to sign his petitions, however, do not actually support his ideas and beliefs. When it truly comes time to show support for Leon they are not there, not out of fear, but because they do not believe in his cause. My belief is supported by the water ordinance turn-out. People truly support preventing the pillaging of our resources and have shown again and again their support to prevent this from occurring. The warrants this year and last involving Leon just do not have the support this blog feels it has. The small minority that is trying to effect their will on the majority will probably be unsucessful regardless of the leagl process that is followed. I hear alot about the "system being broken". If the system is fixed to your liking then you will still require the support of the town residents, otherwise a similiar outcome will follow again and again. This is regardless of the process in place. At the moment the will of the people has been spoken. Until fellow bloggers get the word out and convince others that there is a better way to do things nothing will ever change. The marketing effort from this blog is poor. When a new person signs on and reviews this site they become more confused and realize that factual information cannot be gleamed from this or the other sister sites because the reality is that it is too easy for the opposition to portray these sites as spin and profoundly full of factual discrepencies whether they are only perceived or not. Until an all out effort is made to bring true cedibility to these sites then they will be looked on by most as sites being run by the "loonies". This is the real roadblock that must be overcome then we can start fixing the real problems of this town. Just my opinion!
I signed, but didn't go to the meeting out of fear as to what I might witness or get accused of in the parking lot. My name is on there because I agree that we need these changes desperately. I did give all my stories to the Attorney instead.
Unfortunately for all, the people never had a chance to speak, because the town officials, moved questions, and ammended articles, and cut off debate before any residents had the chance to get to the mike.
FYI- certain "town officials" were on the phone this morning to the editor of the New HAmpshire News desk of the Eagle Tribune. I don't know what is coming down, but expect something.
To; anon 3:10..I agree with your statement. This site seems to be rather confusing and not exactly credible. After watching the meeting on Sat. then reading some comments on this blog. That's when I thought hmmm really I didn't get that impression from this person, and really gee I didn't see anyone "screaming" at anyone. I also didn't see anyone standing in line behind anyone when the discussion was closed on different articles. I started second guessing myself and wondered gee did I miss something. So I went back and watched some and once again I didn't find anything to back what was said on this blog..so I am just going from what I heard and saw. I wish there was more evidence of some creditability to this blog. but sorry I just cant find it. seems to me things just twisted and exaggerated. This would just be my opinion as well. Thanks.
You miss alot when you're not there. Last year I was there and watched the tape later and got a different perspective on the tv. You can't hear the heckling, and you can't see the whole room, or tha hallway, just a portion of the story is on tape.
To: anon 3:10pm
A major credibility issue that I find with this blog is it's a one department attack. What do I mean
you're wondering? ... it is fairly obvious to me that other depts have major conflict/control issues ex: highway and fire dept. I will not rant on these depts, but I'm sure you get the message. However, no matter what goes on in departments favorable to the blog they are defended by people such as Mark no matter what. It's kinda like Obama saying "change" is coming, then picking cabinet members who don't pay taxes but its
OK because they're good people. If you want my support then you need to broaden your horizons and prove the blog does not exist to clean up the "chief problem" and the "chief problem" ONLY. The whole town is broken but the lynch mob only attacks the chief and gives a free pass to everyone else.
What gives?
I agree but feel the biggest problem is the Chief so this always comes out in the forefront and always generates the most negativity. A few of the other issues may go away if he did. The we can tackle the rest of the problems.
please explain how the Fire chief,or the road agent retaliates against people who are critical of him?
How many lawsuits have been filed regarding the fire chief's or road agents actions?
How many resident complaints have been filed against the fire chief or the road agent?
How many times has the fire chief or the road agent voted as selectman on their depts. business?
It seems one sided because that is where most of the controversy originates, and it is ALL of Phil's own making.
This blog has attacked the selectmen when they do bone headed things, the budget committee when they ignore their jobs, and the school district when they slack off, how is it directed at the Pd?
I think you're wrong. The Chief is right that their is a vandetta against him if you continue to prove him correct. This blog as 3:10 stated is too easy to label as
a bunch of loonies. Three years now your stategy is not working. Regardless if you change the legal process, you must win over the support of more than "a few deer making tracks in the snow" in order to effect change. Alot of residents like the chief but dislike other dept heads and would be willing to support cleaning it all up. The mentality of removing the chief and then taking care of the other depts does not work because no one believes that is your true plan of action. Fix your'e pet project and screw the rest is what I percieve this blog to be about.
The biggest problem IMHO was that the people here that read the blog, who are needed at the deliberative session to protect the warrant articles, weren't given any chance here to have input to the articles themselves.
If people were given the chance to give some input to them people would have a sense of ownership with them and be more likely to take the time to go and protect them.
Also, many of the warrants were worded poorly, and didn't even appropriate the necessary funds for them to happen.
If we want a better turnout next year we need to not come off like a bunch of cranks here, get our act together, and educate the town on these issues.
Please don't insult yourself with your silly argument. So, the other depts are all AWESOME! This is why you are a couple of deer in the woods crying WOLF, WOLF, WOLF but you know what? No one cares about your tunnel vision vandetta. Keep your blinders on and good luck for you will need it.
No one said the other depts, were awesome, I said they do not have the documented problems that the chief of police has.
The selectmen are also to blame because they do not supervise town employees. They will eat the road agent for lunch in meetings, but never reprimand, the person who creates most of the problems.
The planning board is a mess too. How can you have a developer, head the planning board, and other builders sit on the board?
The conflict of interest committee is a joke! How can you have Jack Sapia deciding conflicts of interest?
Yes there are problems in town, just like most towns, but other than the police chief, and the planning board, it would be hard to classify the others as corrupt.
lol, i didn't realize it was comedy nite
"Yes there are problems in town, just like most towns, but other than the police chief, and the planning board, it would be hard to classify the others as corrupt."
CREDIBILITY ISSUE will never leave this blog as long as you refuse to open your eyes to all issues in town.
you would have had to be ther eto see Frank and Jack screaming a Brownfield during lunch break, about how they wanted their pictures deleted, or they would call their lawyers.
I wonder if those are the lawyers we pay for?
CREDIBILITY ISSUE will never leave this blog as long as you refuse to open your eyes to all issues in town.
Ok, name the ones being ignored.
Please list some of the other "issues" in town and please explain how those "issues" compare in severity to the issues that the Chief has been involved in. The truth is that any issue that you can come up with, pales in comparison to the issues created by PVC, you seem to want to worry about j-walking when when we have a serial killer on the loose.
This is really kind of funny..LOL..
I do feel Frank is sometimes a little arrogant and condescending.( could leave out comments about peoples penmanship and such) I think he just thinks its funny which sometimes he is but other times he goes a little to far.Theres still the factor of respect he sometimes forgets. But I didn't hear him yelling at anyone at anytime.
to 6:14pm
we are waiting for your list
even just one issue
Try to go off topic all you want, but the issue is: Frank Polito and Jack Sapia broke the law(s) repeatedly during deliberative session. Since the Selectmen refuse to rein in any of them (including the Chief) they will be held accountable in court.
Since the townspeople are to terrified to protect their rights, they deserve to pay the legal fees for the people that cause all the problems. Tax rate goes up, insurance premiums go up, and the process starts all over again.
What a pathetic process.
Wow and to think I live in the same town as this person who wrote this and my kids go to school with their kids...wow no wonder we have so many issues with children s behaviors and such....."Gee the teacher raised her voice at me" wow...unbelievable..I am shocked at the ridiculous of the thought processes behind this!!!!!
Try to go off topic all you want, but the issue is: Frank Polito and Jack Sapia broke the law(s) repeatedly during deliberative session. Since the Selectmen refuse to rein in any of them (including the Chief) they will be held accountable in court.
Since the townspeople are to terrified to protect their rights, they deserve to pay the legal fees for the people that cause all the problems. Tax rate goes up, insurance premiums go up, and the process starts all over again.
What a pathetic process.
The facts are;
Any person has the right to take pictures, or video, or any recording form they choose in a public meeting.
Frank was lecturing on the law, incorrectly, again.
Frank got pissed at having his decree challenged
Frank deprived this guy of his rights
Frank had the town vote on it, jackass
After lunch when the guy called a point of order and told Frank he was wrong, Frank started lecturing him, in a loud, and nasty tone of voice again. Wrong again.
During lunch Frank and Jack yelled at this guy about his pictures, and Jack brought over Baldwin to make it more intimidating.
And they did all this right after being notified that they are defendants in a civil rights lawsuit!
Can you say IDIOT?
Yes, they are all part of the brotherhood of chief ConstantScream-o!
"Anon 3:42 writes:
I signed, but didn't go to the meeting out of fear as to what I might witness or get accused of in the parking lot. My name is on there because I agree that we need these changes desperately. I did give all my stories to the Attorney instead."
Wow. Way for you -- and really for even Mark and Leon -- leave someone like Ms. Goodrich hanging in the wind. She was THE ONLY citizen to stand-up at meeting and cite her issues with the Chief. The rest of you cowered! The most Mark could muster is is earnest -- yet completely phony -- statement as to why he put his name on the EA petition. Mark, we know all you want to do is try and take control of EA from the Chief. For you to get up there and give us your BS about how you reaallly believe the petition is good for EA is a joke. It makes you look like a two-paced political hack!
And Leon looked like a confused madman. "Nuff said on that!
And now your panties are in a bunch over a damn picture. How pathetic...
I wonder what our tax rate would be if Mark, Leon, and Gary stopped suing the town? Think of how much those three -- who claim to be so vigilant of taxes -- are costing the rest of us.
OH MY God! I just saw the video on Atkinson Factor on this site of moderator Francis Polito chewing out Mr. Brownfield. Oh My God. It is frightening. I saw it on youtube too under FRANK POLITO BREAKS THE LAW.
Copy and paste THIS into your browser!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQoEEy_lTo&eurl=http://atkinson-factor.blogspot.com/
II. Subject to the provisions of RSA 91-A:3, all meetings, whether held in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner, shall be open to the public. Except for town meetings, school district meetings, and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings
OK then, then tell me, what was going through Franks head on this "Photo" issue? Just days after being notified on a Civil Lawsuit, Frank just opened his mouth and inserted his BigFoot. Stopping photo's from being taken by a citizen, but letting a Eagle Tribune reporter take pictures? Man, or should i say Geese,this is a ridiculous example of bully behavior of a (one way) political machine in Atkinson. This is just a piece of the video to come.
Soooo. Is Frank going to get this snippet of his mistake at deliberative session also deleted? Gosh, and it got broadcast on TV. Its gonna take some big time editing to get rid of it all. Isn't that illegal? A lot of arm twisting to remove evidence today? I wonder.
"I wonder what our tax rate would be if Mark, Leon, and Gary stopped suing the town? Think of how much those three -- who claim to be so vigilant of taxes -- are costing the rest of us."
Well, they wouldn't have to sue if our public officials obeyed the law. The Deliberative Session doesn't work so it is the only recourse.
You don't want to get sued, then don't do something that is wrong or illegal. It is our public officials who raise our legal fees because they don't seem capable of doing the right thing. And to make matters worse, they do it while being legally recorded.
So, who is really at fault here? Those who are breaking the law, or the victims seeking redress?
Here's a clue. Holding public office does not exempt one from obeying the law. And, it does not exempt them from making their own interpretations of the law.
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.
That's it.
You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
OMG! The Atkinson (Non)Factor is once again shamelessly plugging his own blog with annoying anonymous posts. He is also spamming this blog by posting the same message repeatedly and on non-related topics.
Can the webmaster kindly do something about this?
Oh wait! They are of the same mind and I'll bet nothing will happen. Sound familiar?!
How do you spell hypocrisy? A-R-2!
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AS A PHOTOGRAPHER IF HARASSED. If Someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they are liable for crimes such as coercion or theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police. You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers. The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.
Isn't it interesting that the Eagle Tribune reporter and photographer were present at Deliberative Session and they did not have the common sense to speak out or heaven forbid -- advise Mr. Polito or another town official of their liability? Were they deaf and dumb to the conversations about photography rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and intimidation going on right in front of them? Was it just ignorance? And will they report correctly and legally the events that occurred that day in their newspaper? Is the press responsible to protect our rights and freedoms? Why did they not speak out? It is shameful. The Eagle Tribune reporter can do a far better job of representing his profession and his newspaper. The photographer could have shut off the camera in protest, but did not.
Atkinson Police Chief: Bully or Target Union Leader article
I taped and watched the deliberative session and last night I re-watched the exchange just after the intermission. I would like to offer the following observations for comment and consideration:
1. Frank Polito said clearly, that as Town Moderator, he thought Mr. Brownfield was causing a distraction by photographing individuals in attendance and was intimidating. He asked him to stop taking pictures.
2. Mr. Polito also pointed out that Mr. Brownfield was not a member of the press and he did not know his intent of the use of pictures.
3. Mr. Brownfield held a notepad during much of the exchange and frequently referred to it. Twice, he looked at his notepad and then asked if Frank was going to ask the legislative body to vote on whether or not he had to delete his pictures. Frank said no, he would not do that and asked Mr. Brownfield if he wanted him to ask the legislative body to vote on the issue.
4. If anyone was screaming or losing his temper, it was Mr. Brownfield. He yelled at Frank for interrupting him and Frank said only "yes, sir."
5. Frank told Mr. Brownfield he could videotape the meeting and as moderator, he could direct him as to where to place the camera and microphone.
In my opinion, Mr. Brownfield's constant review of his notes and repeated attempts to ask for a vote to delete the pictures indicated he was trying to lead the moderator to do this. Why? When Frank said no the first time, shouldn't he have dropped it?
At the risk of repeating myself, I hope, in a sense, Mr. Brownfield will pursue this case as I think there is ample evidence that he was being a distraction during the meeting. If he loses, we can be done with this whole matter.
I think a judge would have to consider that as town moderator, Frank was trying to keep order in the meeting and what little chance Mr. Brownfield had of winning his argument was lost when he covered the ACTV camera.
I would also like to point out that as a citizen of Atkinson, I believe Mr. Brownfield attempted to deny me of my right to watch the meeting at my home by tampering with taxpayer funded A/V equipment.
I would also like to know if it matters whether or not he is a member of the press?
Finally, Fred Childs, who rarely speaks during sessions, made an insightful observation. During the discussion of the PD budget and raise, Fred mentioned that he was looking out at the crowd and was seeing the same faces he's seen for the past ten to fifteen years.
Mark, Leon, Gary...can you please admit to yourself -- or at least entertain the thought -- that you did not, and do not have the support of the majority of your fellow citizens? Saturday was your Waterloo, your Little Bighorn. You lost. Did you read the title of the Union Leader article? You are starting to turn the Chief into a sympathetic figure in this town and now, the state and, in my opinion, the tide is really starting to turn against you.
Please, if you truly wish to keep our tax rate down, drop your pursuit of this through the courts and stop dragging our town through the mud.
I signed, but didn't go to the meeting out of fear as to what I might witness or get accused of in the parking lot. My name is on there because I agree that we need these changes desperately. I did give all my stories to the Attorney instead.
I don't think the townies will change and hope the attorney can put these bullies in their place.
Anon 9:25 AM,
You are a spineless wimp! Poor Ms. Goodrich got up there all by herself and laid it out on the line in front of the town. You signed, and hid.
I didn't see Mark or Leon or Gary get up and air out their specific grievances against the Chief like Ms. Goodrich did.
I hope you sleep well at night knowing you signed your name on this petition and didn't even bother to show up to the session (because you were FRIGHTENED) and let other citizens hang in the wind like that!!! And now all your articles went down in flames. What a moron you are!!!
1.) Brownfields camera was aimed solely at the front of the room. He was not getting up and photographing individuals around the room, but the public officials doing their jobs.
2.) Frank did not have the right to tell him to stop taking pictures, nor to threaten him with removal.
3.)Under the law, Brownfields purpose or motivation doe snot matter, nor does he have to disclose it.
4.)Frank was raising his voice, and it took Mr. Acciard form the floor to tell him that "with all due respect, this discussion has no place on town floor, it is not the town's business", before this charade ended.
5.)The law is clear ANYONE may photo a public meeting! And as moderator Frank knew this! HE STARTED the Altercation by demeaning Brownfield in front of the town. And he did not have the right to do it, especially given that the town was just notified of an impending civil rights lawsuit, in which FRANK IS NAMED AS A DEFENDANT!
i just turned on my tv set and was shocked at the disruptive behavior of certain individuals. can't anyone see they are being used for a larger purpose? this group pulling puppet strings don't care about you or me
""I hope you sleep well at night knowing you signed your name on this petition and didn't even bother to show up to the session (because you were FRIGHTENED) and let other citizens hang in the wind like that!!! And now all your articles went down in flames. What a moron you are!!!""
Actually, after spending the morning at a family funeral, I was too tired to deal with the crap going on in town and let myself be subjected to the possibility of harassment you exhibit here. But thanks for your ignorance, I'm really glad I didn't show up now.
Isn't it interesting that the Eagle Tribune reporter and photographer were present at Deliberative Session and they did not have the common sense to speak out or heaven forbid -- advise Mr. Polito or another town official of their liability? Were they deaf and dumb to the conversations about photography rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and intimidation going on right in front of them? Was it just ignorance? And will they report correctly and legally the events that occurred that day in their newspaper? Is the press responsible to protect our rights and freedoms? Why did they not speak out? It is shameful. The Eagle Tribune reporter can do a far better job of representing his profession and his newspaper. The photographer could have shut off the camera in protest, but did not.
Perhaps the ET photographer, being a professional kept going because there was a story unfolding? Or maybe the photographer did not stand-up for Gary as s/he thought Gary was causing a disturbance? Bottom line is, who cares what the ET photographer did?
i want to see the video"were on you tube? i looked can not find. pleaselet me know.
Go to Atkinson Factor on this web site. Look on the right hand side. Click on it and scroll down. That's where the video is.
that,s it ''i want to see the whole delibertive session where do i go
Anon 7:58,
That is a good point. If you go to Atkinson (Hate) Factor, you'll only see what the webmaster wants you to see. NOT the whole picture.
Nice comeback, Frank
Post a Comment