From the eagle tribune;
Longtime Atkinson official resigns Town moderator quits over liability expenses
By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON — After 24 years in local government, Frank Polito has resigned as town moderator and an 18-year member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, saying he is tired of being sued by residents and can no longer afford to defend himself.
Polito's sudden resignation comes only days before he was to lead the town's deliberative session on Jan. 30. He was the town moderator for 10 years and the zoning board's chairman for the last eight years.
In the four-page resignation letter sent to the selectmen Friday, Polito cited three lawsuits he has been named in by residents as the reason why he is leaving town government.
Polito learned Jan. 11 that his personal liability insurance policy was canceled as a result of the lawsuits, with the insurance company paying $20,000 to defend him in a case that led to his computer at work being subpoenaed.
"I believe that serving as Moderator at deliberative session in 2 weeks exposes me to the risk of additional litigation and resulting personal hardship," the letter states.
Polito was one of several town officials named in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court. Residents Leon Artus, Gary Brownfield and Steven Lewis alleged that Polito and other town officials violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit specifically alleged that Polito violated Brownfield's rights by not allowing him to take photographs at the 2009 deliberative session.
The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court judge in October, but Polito said the residents have filed a motion to retry the case in Rockingham County Superior Court.
The other two lawsuits were filed separately by residents Carol Grant and Mark Acciard. Grant's lawsuit, settled two years ago for $30,000, accused Polito and three other town officials of damaging her reputation by talking about her during selectmen's meetings in 2005.
In the third lawsuit against Polito and other town officials, Acciard, a former Budget Committee member, also claimed his reputation was damaged during public meetings.
The town's insurance company would not cover all the expenses from the lawsuits and Polito said he was forced to hire private attorneys.
"I always believed that even if I were wrongfully accused in a law suit, the Town's liability coverage for its public officials would protect me from harm," he wrote. "However, while defending myself in the first of this string of law suits, I painfully learned that the accusation of wrong doing itself, and the corresponding need to mount a strong defense, inflicts serious personal hardship."
Polito also said in the letter he is worried about the town.
"I am saddened by the events of the past three years and I am genuinely concerned about the future of Atkinson," he wrote. "I fear that there will continue to be concerted efforts by some in Town to use the imperfections of our legal system to achieve their goals. The same goals they have been unable to achieve through the Democratic process of Town Meeting."
When reached last night, Polito said he felt sad earlier this week when his daughter told him he wouldn't be serving as moderator the first time she is able to vote.
"It has been just as much as educational for my kids as it has been public service for me," he said.
An interim moderator has already been named by the Supervisors of the Checklist.
State Rep. James Garrity, R-Atkinson, was appointed on Tuesday to fill the moderator's position for the deliberative session and the March election.
Martha McDonald, one of three members of the Supervisors of the Checklist, said they asked Garrity to attend their meeting Tuesday night to see if he would serve the rest of his two-year term.
"He is a very well-liked person," McDonald said.
Selectman Bill Friel, who was on the zoning board with Polito, said his colleague served Atkinson well over the years.
"He was a great source for the town," Friel said.
Garrity said yesterday he is taking a moderator training course this weekend through the New Hampshire Local Government Center to prepare for election season.
A new moderator will be elected to a two-year term at the March election, according to Town Clerk Rose Cavalear.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
124 comments:
Nice spin, Frank; but the reason you had to defend yourself. without the town paying for it, is that you were posting nasty shit on the blog from Lucent! Why should the town cover it, you werent doing anything for the town?
Sorry buddy, I liked you as a moderator until you acted like a jackass last year. No pity, you did this to yourself. Sorry kiddo
There is now an opening on the ZBA.
Want change? Get involved. Submit your application to the Selectmen.
Whoever did the first posting response on this topic, knock it off.
The Atkinson blog is for discussing town issues -- not for you to advertise your personal business for your own profit.
Wow I feel like I just took a big dump after being constipated for 3 years.
The truly sad part is Frank donated many hours to town service but he ruined it all cause his ego got bigger than his britches and out of control. You can't be an impartial moderator. You MUST apply the same rules to all.
Bye Frank!! all of your victims are lining up to wave good bye. Its quite a long line and its a LOT more than the 5 people you blame the worlds problems on. Hopefully you'll get more liability insurance soon because it aint over yet.
"You can't be an impartial moderator. You MUST apply the same rules to all."
And here I thought being an impartial moderator meant applying the same rules to all. This must be a new form of english.
Sorry for the typo jerk. Here I'll fix it for you.
To be an impartial moderator you MUST apply the same rules to all.
There feel better? What an illness you have. To be OCD over spelling on a blog. You must be a busy person with millions of blogs to fix. Now that you're no longer moderator you have the time to do it.
Boo hoo. You hurt my feelings calling me a jerk. LOL. By the way, I never was moderator, but have fun in your fantasy land. Just to show you how helpful I am, here's a useful link for you.
http://www.eslgo.com/classes.html
I have enjoyed watching Frank during the ZBA meetings regarding the Osbourne case....he stood up against that woman..good job...BUT at the deliberative sessions, he ALLOWED the loud mouths (ie: Dale Childs, Consentino ..) to heckle people & that is not right. People don't like that & he should have put a stop to it!!!
I'd like to express my gratitude to Jim Garrity for stepping into the moderators position. Here's hoping for a respectful, uneventful deliberative session.
I agree. I'm hoping its downright boring.
Thank you Jim.
I disagree. Two years ago, it was Jim Garrity that suggested that it was ok for the voters to ammend warrant articles into nothing. It was allowed, but not right.
This idea has/will cost the town plenty. I veiwed it as disrespectful to the people who went out and got signatures and wasted their time trying to do something good for the town. We are all entitled to our own opinion of how to improve things but that '08 meeting paved the way for the trouble that followed last year.
Anyone in that positon had better follow the law and act with respect to avoid problems this year.
ps - Jim, do something to stop the heckling in the back.
If it falls within the rules, so be it. It might be a bad law that allows for that, but there is no need to shoot the messenger.
I think it is a bad law to allow a warrant article to be amended to nothing. Accept it and deal with it. You must get a majority at deliberative to vote to defend your article. If not, you are out of luck. Accept reality and quit griping. If enough people don't care enough to show up to deliberative session, nothing will change. THAT'S REALITY.
When the group assembled thinks it's funny to obliterate a warrant article, it's pathetic.
It's not funny, it's ignorant to laugh at or otherwise heckle people from the back row. These are your neighbors and you are at the least disrespectful.
ps - I will gripe whenever I please.
I don't know if it's funny to obliterate a warrant article, but there are certainly a few that I thought needed to be. Regardless, if a warrant is that important that you want to ensure it makes the ballot, then organize and fight for it.
Consider that rules allowing those at Deliberative Session to amend an article into nonsense is purposeful and good.
If those behind an article cannot muster the support to carry it through Deliberative Session without changes, then that article is not worthy of the entire electorate.
If you conclude from this that those at Deliberative Session "run the town", that's correct and intentional. Our system gives power to those interested enough to show up at Deliberative Session and wield it.
TO January 21, 2010 2:32 PM
A little pent up anger? Nasty...
The people who go out and get signatures are interested and show up as well.
The hecklers complain that they don't like the way something is written, then get a warrant on the ballot with no content, as in 'To see....'.
Do you think this type of behavior has an merit? I don't.
Yes, I think the system has merit.
Our system is designed so that Deliberative Session serves as a "gate" before a petition article can reach the general electorate on the ballot.
Consider what would happen if we did not have this Deliberative Session gate. Every fringe idea could go right to the ballot based on securing a relative handful of petition signatures. Our ballot would be 50 pages long, filled mostly with fringe (or illegal) petition articles with little popular support.
Deliberative Session, by being a tough body to get an article through, protects us from the frivilous.
If you have ever watched a selectman's meeting or a deliberative session with Garrity involved you've likely seen it; his winking, nodding, and grinning with the good ole' boys, all the way back to Sapia. I don't want to completely slam him but I don't want there to be much confusion here. Garrity is just one of the "boys" who isn't interested in changing the status quo of the Atkinson Mafia one bit. Watch and see for yourself...
It's a tough body alright but I don't mean it in a flattering way.
It's a disgrace to watch the way these people act and speak.
There were some very good articles the past few years but they get squashed by the lunatics who have personal agendas. Think of the great article last year to expand elderly affairs. I don't know the the Director found any fault with this at all.
Well he'll be just as vulnerable as Polito was if that be the case.
The moderator should shut down any heckling as a matter of course, however, if people are opposed to a warrant as written, it is within their right to gut it. Some of you are so concerned about your rights, except when it comes to the rights of others. Seems to be a hypocritical stance.
Now I have to wonder if the warrant to expand elderly affairs was brought to Phil. If not, I can see why he might not support it. If you want to make changes to a department, it's generally a good idea to get that department on board with those changes or you'll face resistance. That's just human nature.
Rumor has it Sapia has a bug up his a** over the Library budget and intends to make his thoughts known.
Jack was originally in favor of the new library. But, when his good buddy did not get the contract to build it, no more nice Jack.
Keep this in mind if he starts to pontificate. Jack is a perfect example of the old lawyer joke. "How do you know he's lying? His mouth is moving."
- Persistent lying is a symptom of certain behavioral disorders.
Symptom of: * Antisocial personality disorder.
Jack might have a point. Have you seen the library budget? That and Kay wasn't exactly above board during the building process. She's lucky she didn't get the charter pulled.
The only time Jack has a point is when it is self serving.
Regardless of Sapia's motives, the library is an issue. The trustees are in need of new leadership as Kay hasn't exactly done things by the book.
There are some vague charges about mismanagement at the library.
Could someone provide specifics? As in facts, not opinions?
The elected Moderator's position and an appointed ZBA position are open.
Want Change? Step up to the plate.
Kay had the "Friends of Kimball Library" hire and pay for contractors during the construction process. That is illegal and it opened up the town to liability problems. For those who are concerned about transparency, they should be very concerned with how Kay operates.
"Slowly and steadily Consentino has set up a private account for donations to his non-profit and had much of it acquired with tax dollars. He shuttles little old ladies to appointments and collects the type of gratitude that encourages a small band of Deliberative Session “voters” to do his bidding. This is why only a small handful of voters in Atkinson challenge any budget or warrant article. Atkinson is democracy spelled, R.I.C.O."
Ed Naile summed up how Atkinson Deliberative Sesseon really operates. The police inspired political hacks and town employee boot lickers carve up good, even excellent petition warrant arrives to garbage. Oh right, these are the "gatekeepers" of democracy!
If the warrants are excellent, then where are the supporters to make sure they don't get carved up? If these warrants are so important, then steps should be made to organize and fight for them. This is nothing more than whining about a battle being lost when you never even bothered to put an army on the field. Weak.
The articles were carved up by a group of self-serving townies who oppose anything that doesn't serve them first. Many of these people are town enployees who live off the taxpayers as it is.
No one has to run an article by a dept. head to get their approval first. This is the same type of stuff that has taken this town to new depths of embarassment and all the lawsuits.
People don't show up at the meetings because they don't want to tangle with the local riff raff.
"The other two lawsuits were filed separately by residents Carol Grant and Mark Acciard. Grant's lawsuit, settled two years ago for $30,000, accused Polito and three other town officials of damaging her reputation by talking about her during selectmen's meetings in 2005."
The Grant lawsuit could have gone to trial. A judge and jury would not be as kind to the defendants for their conduct. A $500,000 award.!! It takes that kind of award to bring about change in Atkinson.
JMHO.
"People don't show up at the meetings because they don't want to tangle with the local riff raff."
There is also the moderator strategy to allow heckling to intimidate voters from speaking and exercising their first amendment rights.
The new, temporary moderator will not allow slanderous heckling of any kind at 2010 deliberative session??
Here is what will happen:
Voter's will bring tape recorders and cameras and this heckling and the temporary moderator's conduct will be recorded and legally documented.
Then immediately turn over this evidence to an attorney for Superior Court litigation.
To 11:44 AM
Power belongs to those motivated enough to show up at Deliberative Session and wield it. Like it or not, that is the system, and in my view it is a good system.
If only "police inspired policital hacks" and "town employee boot lickers" choose to show up at Deliberative Session, well then, the rest of the electorate has willingly ceded power to them, haven't they?
All of us get the government we deserve from our individual actions (or inaction).
No one has to run an article by a dept. head to get their approval first.
You are correct, of course, what you're trying to do is run a department from the outside. Wouldn't it be better to work with the department head and get their buy in? If it were your department and someone was doing that to you, would you go along with it? I'm sure the answer is no.
People don't show up at the meetings because they don't want to tangle with the local riff raff.
You know what they say about excuses. Either show up and fight for your warrants or stop bitching about the process that you elect not to involve yourself with.
How do you work with a dept. head that REFUSES;
1.)To provide public information he is required to give to any who ask by law?
2.) Refuses to provide any verification for his sound bite numbers?
3.) Heckles those who apeak contrary to his interests at town meeting
4.) Bullies and harrasses anyone who questions him, or his actions
5.) Slanders people at public meetings.
6.) Lies about receiving grants
7.) Lies about paying himself extra money
8.) Lies about how many people use elderly affairs, and how many rides they give.
How do you "work with" that?
Why to the rude hacks here always assume that the rest of us who disagree with them, do not go to the meetings or participate in government?
We have the right to request change in ANY town department and do not need the dept head to buy into anything.
Can you picture trying to work with PC on anything? No thanks.
To 3:58
Of course people on all sides of every issue participate in town meeting.
But my point with the "wield power" commentary was that sponsors of petition articles should not be surprised a (controversial or polarizing) petition gets gutted when they have 10 petition-backers in the room and 50 who will be opposed.
The 50 in opposition SHOULD gut the petition.
only a small handful of voters in Atkinson challenge any budget or warrant article. Atkinson is democracy spelled, R.I.C.O.
Sounds like losers lament to me. If you can't garner enough support to get your warrant through deliberative to the ballot, then it probably wouldn't have passed anyway. The claims about RICO or anything else is just noise. You failed to organize. You failed to fight for your warrants. Stop crying about it and get your act together instead.
What happens is your rude and crude group intimidates, defames and slanders citizens and this makes those citizens want to sit behind there TV rather than share a similar fate. Turn out is then dominated by town employees and allies of the PD/Edlerly affairs.
Now you know the answer to the mystery as to why the honest citizens want an electronic barrier between them and the viscous hecklers in Atkinson.
This year, the hecklers go to court to answer for slander and defamation. It's not going to be "business as usual".
First of all, I don't own them. Secondly, if their skin is that thin they'll NEVER pass ANYTHING regardless of who's in power. But again, this is just more noise. "Oh boo hoo the hecklers picked on me so I'm going to stay home." Please. You know how pathetic that sounds?
If you heckle and slander people exercising their right to speak at deliberative session, it is you, sir, who are pathetic. You need to be removed not just from deliberative session 2010 but any town office you hold.
Heckling is a form of verbal abuse and you go ahead and do it this year. We hope you do. Proceed at your own risk.
I have never heckled anyone at deliberative nor will I. I'm happy to have a respectful debate, but at the same time I'm not afraid to fight for what I believe in, hecklers or not. You should too instead of making excuses as to why you can't.
How big do the jury awards against the Town of Atkinson officials have to be before they LEARN THE LESSON that it is not legal to heckle, harass and slander citizens in public? Will it take...
Two hundred and fifty thousand
One Million
Eight Million
20 Million
The Peak award. That was a real, real big one.
Was it Peak who got the biggest judgment against the town or was it someone else?
Peak's settlement was the largest civil settlement in NH history at the time, Oct. 1988.
To: 1/22/10 6:12 PM
At the 2009 deliberative session I experienced some serious heckling from the police chief and his supporters. In the past, I witnessed the Sergeant-at-Arms for the New Hampshire General Court physically remove an individual from the building for similar behavior.
I did shake while standing at the microphone; it was not easy to bear up to the verbal intimidation. At one point I bit my lip while the tears welled up. I guess you could call that being thin skinned. I hope that doesn't sound too "pathetic." At one point I challenged the moderator to put a stop to the name calling of others by one individual.
Many people commented to me that day and later throughout the year that they have never been so ashamed of their town.
I hope that we will all treat each other with respect this year and stand up to any acts to the contrary.
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
Ralph W. Sockman
Pat, I think you're missing the point. While I can appreciate that you felt intimidated, you had the courage to speak to your convictions and fight for what you believe in. I applaud you for that. Others on this blog just complain about the process and show no inclination to stand up for themselves, but instead just continuously make excuses as to why no one shows up. That's what pathetic.
Pat,
if you're the woman that gets up repeatedly and asks too many questions, I admire your guts, but you eat up WAY too much time and you make reformists look bad. There is a wind in the auditorium from all the eye rolling everytime you get up to the mic.
Please educate yourself on the facts of an issue before deliberative session; when you get to the mic be concise with your comments, and don't eat up so much time, because other people get very frustrated with too many specious questions.
I admire your courage but please, be knowledgable about the issue and facts and figures ahead of time.
To the last poster, I beg to disagree with you. Too few people ask hard questions, at deliberative session, or at town meetings. If it takes someone some time to get to their point, or if they need something explained to them, it should not engender eye-rolls. Too many people have a go along- get along attitude, just sitting there waiting for the favored vote.
I applaud Mrs. Goodrich for getting up in front of fellow townspeople and saying what is on her mind. It is hard to stand up in front of a bully, eye to eye, as it were, and ask questions that he doesn't want answered.
Mrs. Goodrich, please continue to ask whatever questions you wish at town meeting, that is it's purpose.
Obvious that the same hack that intimidated Mrs Goodridge is low enough to do it at any time. Bring your pocket tape recorder, Mrs Goodridge. Let it run all day jan 30. If you can hear the heckling so can your digital recorder. Identify your heckler by pointing at them and saying their name.
The digital voice recorder to buy:
Olympus Model from Radio Shack. Set it on conference mode and high quality. It will record for 72 hours continuously on high quality. Be sure to try it out first so your results as perfect.
I hear Radio Shack has a "run" on them. So call first.
Everyone should bring a camera and digital voice recorder to 2010 deliberative session to protect themselves and assist the attorney.
Bring a very good chair. One you can sit in comfortably.
A new location for deliberative session 2011 needs to be discussed this year. The current location and chairs are pathetic.
Everyone souls
I have the Olympus Vn-6200PC. It has a USB cord so I can transfer directly into the computer and burn a CD. You can do that with all the recorders. This one has a bigger memory. It goes 72hours continuous recording at the highest quality.
Video recording is also legal.
get the evidence of heckling acts by individual AND the group.
Personally I think you're wasting your money purchasing recording equipment. If there's an issue, file an RSA91A and get a copy of deliberative. Looking at the warrants, there really doesn't seem to be anything controversial and with Frank gone, I doubt there will be any issues.
Oh come on, the heckler was the Chief of Police! Phil was sitting at the back of the room generally acting like a spoiled 5 year old, making noises, and claiming that she needed "to get her facts straight"! How different his attitude was from when he plead the fifth 20 times in court!
I counted at least 2 dozen people heckling last year and it was very bad. The same people do it every year and evidence of it is on the video tapes. They have some "star performers" but there is a lot of shared guilt as this is a planned and deliberate strategy to intimidate voters, inhibit free speach and corrupt the democratic process.
The official video recording may not properly capture the audio of whoever slanders you. But if you can hear it, so can your own personal digital recorder. (Mine did last year.)
Even if they just yell...OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH BOTTOM-FEEDER!!!!...point to them and speak the bully's name that is issuing slanderous abuse. You were slandered in an official deliberative session by a known town bully and it went out to the entire town on TV.
That is strictly illegal.
The way to handle a bully is stand up to them. Don't just "take it". But do it legally!!! Don't be foolish.
Alternately, if your bully walks up to you, just say, "I don't want to speak to you". If they then go ahead and slander and abuse you, then say, "Thank you" and state their name.
If they refuse to identify themselves then describe their appearance into your digital recorder. Then ask another person for their identity and record that.
Look forward to the moderator and group of bullies self-destruction this year. They will do it because they can't control their slander as they got away with it for decades and think they are immune from prosecution.
They will fall right into the trap and the trap will "snap shut".
The moderator will self-destruct if he allows slander (heckling) of voters at 2010 deliberative session. If he does not REMOVE them from deliberative session, he condones and approves of the public slander.
Be careful with the recording devices. If you're going to use them make them be out in the open. Secretly recording conversations is illegal. Look it up if you don't believe me. You can, however, record in the open.
No. If you are at deliberative session you have the legal right to use a audio recording device or camera or video camera. That's the law.
And it does not matter in deliberative session if you have a digital recorder in your shirt pocket. You have the right to record. Period!
And you can take a picture of anyone attending deliberative session at any time. That's the law.
If you need more clarification regarding your rights to record at a public meeting, can read the law. Alternately contact Xmoderator Polito as he now fully understands the law and can explain it in full to you.
What are you talking about? When did Phil plead the fifth 20 times? and what the hell was he pleading it to? Is this true? if so that is pretty bad for a police chief, doesn't that mean he did something illegal and answering might incriminate him?
You can record the deliberative session. I didn't say you couldn't. However, you must record out in the open. Secret recordings are both illegal and would NEVER stand up in court. You're so worried about elected officials breaking the law, but yet you don't seem to mind advising the citizens to do just that. Folks, bring your cameras, video cameras, voice recorders, whatever, just make sure you record in the open.
Remember that guy who spoke at the microphone and told Polito that a photographer needed a " model release" at deliberative session?
Well, Polito didn't correct and quote the law. He allowed this false statement.
He will be explaining this deficiency to a judge and jury. And his excuse it will never happen again... Is not good enough.
The court needs to set an example, as Selectman Sullivan said, "People have their rights! And we have to take an inventory of what we are doing here in Atkinson".
Show me where it says you can't have your digital audio recording in your shirt pocket you sound like one terrified bully. Maybe you can check with your pal town attorney Kalmer.
I already checked with my attorney.
Checkmate!!!
I have the right to audio record and photograph at deliberative session even if the camera is not in the open. It says absolutely nothing in the law as to the location of your camera. It can be up your sleave.
But then misquoting the law and violating peoples rights is standard practice in Atkinson.
Actually, it depends. If you are recording people speaking at the microphone, that is one thing. But if someone is having what they consider to be a private conversation with you, then you are breaking the law. NH law requires consent to record what someone expects to be a private conversation. So in reality, we were both right and both wrong.
As far as me being terrified, that's a laughable statement after I said to record away. If I was a bully I wouldn't want ANY recordings now would I. Good grief, some of your imaginations are something else.
Well!!! I know what I am going to do to obey the chiefs new law for deliberative session.
I am going to wrap big microphones around my neck and wear a sign "Recording In Process".
My camera I will tape to my left ear and operate with a remote cable release.
My video camera I will strap to my chest.
I wouldn't want to violate the part time police chiefs new deliberative session law.
Well!!! I know what I am going to do to obey the chiefs new law for deliberative session.
ROTFLMAO! You are something else. Yes, I must be the chief. LOL. This blog is so amusing sometimes. You better run along now and draw your blinds, I think the chief is peeking in your window.
If you don't want to be recorded or photographed at deliberative session, stay home. There are no damn "Private Conversations" in deliberative session. If you want a private conversation, go outside the building.
I didn't say I didn't want to be. I'm simply trying to make sure that people don't violate the law in their zeal to record. Why are you having such a hard time with this? And yes, if two people are standing out of ear shot talking in hushed tones in deliberative session, that would constitute a private conversation.
Mrs. Goodridge it is very sad if you felt heckled and it caused you to shake, bite your lip, and almost cry. I was at both the 2008 and 2009 deliberative sessions, and from your description and others who haved posted on this topic, it sounds like I need a hearing aid. While I do remember the Chief rudely saying something like “get your facts straight”, I don’t recall anything resembling the disruptiveness and chaos that you and others on this blog describe. I do remember that during the 2009 session, when Mr. Artus was at the microphone, the moderator politely interrupted Mr. Artus to quiet someone who was being disruptive while Mr. Artus spoke.
Maybe if I can’t hear the heckling that you and others hear, the moderator can’t hear it either. Might I suggest that if this heckling occurs again that either the person being heckled, or a “good citizen” in attendance, stand up and say “point of order Mr. moderator, please exercise your authority to stop the disruptive heckling”. If you do this, and the moderator still doesn’t stop the heckling, might I suggest that you stand up and say “point of order Mr. moderator, I challenge the moderator and make a motion to affirm that this body does not believe the moderator is fulfilling his duty to address the disruptive behavior by some individuals in this room.” You will need a second to your motion and then it will be put to a vote. If the vote carries, you now have it on record that the moderator isn’t doing his job. I think that is far better than a tape recording of the heckling.
Mrs. Goodridge, I mean no disrespect when I say this but I have never seen you at a loss for words and I have never known you to be shy about stating your position; even when it isn’t a popular one. I also know you to be quite knowledgeable about the laws in NH, your post even sites an experience from the General Court. Several times I have seen you call out from your chair to correct the moderator when you thought he was doing something wrong. Why didn’t you do that when you were being heckled? I’m having difficulty reconciling this with what you have said about your experience at the 2009 deliberative session.
To my fellow anonymous posters, if you see someone being heckled at deliberative session, use the power you have as a member of the legislative body. You can politely, but with conviction, challenge the moderator. Even if your motion fails, the democratic process will have succeeded, that is all any of us can and should ask for.
The body doesn't have to vote for the moderator to do his job when it comes to heckling. He is supposed to do his job or step down.
Since the town "says" it wants to avoid future lawsuits, it should ask town attorney Kalmer to attend deliberative session.
Kalmer should start out by reading the laws of public meetings. Then he can take questions as to what Slander the moderator can choose to ignore or what kind of slander he Kalmer thinks is allowed.
Then the town attorney Kalmer can address the RSA that regards the right to record a public meeting.
He can answer questions from the floor whether your recording device can be in your shirt pocket or if the chief's new law supersedes state law and you have to have a tag above your shirt pocket that reads:
DANGER - SECRET MIC.
YOU ARE BEING RECORDED.
As a bonus the town attorney Kalmer and temporary moderator and Board of Selectmen can advise the deliberative body on the following:
1. Can anyone take a picture of the moderator.
2. Can anyone take a picture of anyone attending deliberative session.
3. How many pictures are you allowed to take. Where are you able to stand to take a picture or is it a law you must be seated.
4. Are any conversations considered "Private Conversations" during deliberative session
5. Do you have to turn your camera card over to Jack Sapia when you depart deliberative session
6. Can you take a picture or record the voice of the part time police chief
7. Can you take a picture of the town videographer
8. Can the temporary moderator be asked to step down for violating the laws of public meeting as he is only appointed and NOT elected.
He can answer questions from the floor whether your recording device can be in your shirt pocket or if the chief's new law supersedes state law and you have to have a tag above your shirt pocket that reads:
Chief's law??? It is the state law you dumb ass. Try looking up secret recordings. Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it.
Think you need an intelligence test far more than you need a hearing aid, but that is only my humble opinion.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-2.htm
Bring Kalmer to deliberative session. Are you chicken to have the truth known?
Kalmer can straighten out what is lawful and you can avoid another major law suit.
But alas, the Selectmen will fail to do their job yet again.
Smart as a bag of hammers.
OK. It is approved. When anyone speaks at the microphone the temporary moderator approves of the following yelled loudly and nasty as possible:
"GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!"
All are encouraged to issue this to anyone at any time while at the microphone.
It is officially sanctioned.
Ho-ray Ho-ray Ho-ray
Speaking of too dumb to do their job, do you think Fred will get reelected?
Have some of the previous posters ever considered what someone looking at this blog for the first time would think of their moronic posts arguing over the wiretapping laws of NH?
Could people here please stay aware that we need more and more people joining the movement for reform in Atkinson; anyone with half a brain, coming and reading this trash, would be convinced we're more interested in food fights than governmental change.
GROW UP OR DON'T POST...
Bite me.
It's to bad Polito wants to play the victim when he was the problem. Enough is enough already and he knew he had outworn his usefullness. Victim be dammed, he is trying to cover his ass. Good riddens to a man that lost his morals.
ho
In my opinion, Polito should have resigned LAST YEAR right after he put on that DISGRACEFULL PERFORMANCE at Town meeting. It wasn't until his insurance company canceled his homeowners insurance in agreement with this opinion that his ego deflated and resigned. If the insurance company no longer supported him, why should we? If the insurance company supported him, he would still be here.
As the smartest DUMB ASS IN TOWN, he realized what would happen and ignored the consequences. Now he wants to portray himself as the victim? I think NOT. He is just another crooked Town Official that is abandoning a sinking ship. Personally, he should be lashed to the foresail and allowed to sink with the ship.
He has reaped what he sowed, and Consentino should be made to understand.
Polito a victim? I think not. Tar and feather while being run out of town on a rail would not be good enough for him. The damage he has done in this town the last six years, doesn't compare to any good he pretends he has done in the past.
Good riddens to a man that sold his soul. Not the first time in history that we've seen it happen. Won't be the last. The BAD he did, outweighs his good.
Ego and Consentino brought him down and NOTHING ELSE.
jmho
Hey, CONSENTINO how is your homeowners insurance doing?
I think CONSENTINO thinks he is going to be allowed to retire with full benefits. I think he should not.
jmho
Mark, thank you for your kind words, and others for their suggestions.
To: 1/23/10 8:31pm
I do have a DVD of the 2009 deliberative session.
If you get a chance to watch it, you will see me standing at the mike. When the police chief hollers at me I turn and face him while cautioning the moderator at the same time. What I said was “Mr. Moderator it is hard enough to stand up here and say this without the police chief hollering at me”.
I then continued to recite my five requests for help that were denied by the Atkinson Elderly Affairs Department. The chief shouted “That’s not true”. I replied that I could back up what I am saying.
I have heard it said that people have different recall of what transpires in a shared experience. We all need to question our own contentions as well as those of others.
To: 1/23/10 10:09 am
Was it your intent to be unkind? You sound very angry and I am sorry for that. We both need to take your advice and be knowledgeable about the nuts and bolts; and then remember to play nice with others.
I hope that this thread leads back to a civic debate. How can we work together to try and solve a looming budget crisis than hangs over our country, state, schools, town and fellow residents?
Whoops, I forgot to tell 1/23/10 10:09 am that he/she can call me Mrs. Goodridge.
Let's have a nice civics debate. The temporary moderator Garrity, isn't that the same guy who tried to "gut" the Right to Know Law at the State level?
I hear what stopped him was Ed Naile and his troops went to the meeting and squashed him like a bug.
So here is the civics debate...why was Garrity chosen to moderate...when Atkinson is being sued for right to know violations in deliberative session 2009?
Garrity didn't try to gut the right to know law, he tried to improve it. The press assumed otherwise without bothering to get the facts. The second year they brought the press in early to let them know what they were doing and the changes were made. If you want to have a civics debate, at least know what it is you're talking about.
Ya right. Garrity got caught with his pants down and reversed position when it came to light at the State and local level. That wouldn't have happened if Ed Naile didn't intercede at the State level. More people are aware now of what Mr. Garitty did than would have known if Mr. Naile wasn't around to catch him.
If it weren't for taxpayer groups, Mr. Garitty would have gotten away with it. His only hope is that taxpayers aren't paying attention.
The more that taxpayer groups are paying attention, the worse for Garrity, Consentino, Polito and other Hacks that support them.
Government is in the hands of the Taxpayers.........PAY ATTENTONS........ to protect your pocketbook and the corruption that exits in every part of your government. It takes time to keep them out of your wallet, but you can't afford to do otherwise.
Show them who is boss by attending deliberative session AND at the ballot box. If you don't attend deliberative session, they will change what you see at the ballot box. Stand up to corruption by attending town meeting. Otherwise, just turn over the password to your bank accounts to Consentino. He knows what to do with it.
So run against him if you think he's so corrupt. Oh wait, I almost forgot, this isn't a place where people are actually willing to do anything, they just hide behind their computer screens and take shots. Never mind. Carry on with your hate fest.
January 24, 2010 9:07 AM said:
“Have some of the previous posters ever considered what someone looking at this blog for the first time would think of their moronic posts arguing over the wiretapping laws of NH?”
You are worried that the posts on wiretapping might appear a bit over-the-top to a newbie? You have got to be kidding right? On any given day, the tin-foil wearing conspiracy nuts are posting to their heart’s content, which alone would send quite a message to a newbie. But that’s not all, we also have daily postings with false information, false allegations, and downright slander written by the folks that flunked anger management or forgot to take their pills.
I’m not at all worried about what someone new would think if they read today’s blog, provided they live in Atkinson. Those people already know that the blog is for entertainment purposes only.
What scares the crap out of me is that a person thinking of buying a home in Atkinson finds a link to this blog because they Google “Atkinson” to learn more about the town they are considering to make a home in!
"Until Atkinson sheds the last remaining, in this case bald, head on its political boil it will remain the laughingstock of NH town meetings."
Buy a house in Atkinson? Are you nuts?
To anon January 24, 2010 1:33 PM
You should have thought of that BEFORE you allowed and supported the CORRUPTION in this town. You supported it so now don't complain when it comes to be.
You belong on an island with your counterparts, while those of us who disagree with you stop the CORRUPTIONS here. You will eat one another up on the island until there is only one left. Enjoy your isolation. WE don't care about you, because you never cared about us or what was really important.
Enjoy your life in isolation. You deserve it.
Rules for being an "Atkinson Reformist".
1. All elected officials, appointed officials, and town employees are corrupt. If they aren't, it's only a matter of time before they get converted by the "Atkinson Mafia".
2. Only the people who sniff around looking for lawsuits are the good guys. Those and the ones who run the blog (one in the same).
3. Anyone who doesn't see the delusional corruption is corrupt and part of the problem. They need to be put on an island so they can turn into canibals and eat each other.
Any questions???
The question is:
How many new lawsuits will Atkinson generate for Superior Court in 2010?
Just STOP violating your own people and lawsuits will vanish.
But I LIKE being violated!
Jim Garrity lost my support in August of 2007 when he came into a selectmen meeting and praised the BOS for their ethical adherance to the RTK law. This after two lawsuits about ethics, and the cairman, Consentino being found in contempt of court for violating the court order to act ethically!
Jim, were you BLIND?
Wow, it didn't take long for a certain element here to start painting Jim Garrity as the new villain. Pathetic.
Frank is right when he writes:
"I am saddened by the events of the past three years and I am genuinely concerned about the future of Atkinson," he wrote. "I fear that there will continue to be concerted efforts by some in Town to use the imperfections of our legal system to achieve their goals. The same goals they have been unable to achieve through the Democratic process of Town Meeting."
1/24; 12:02
"So here is the civics debate...why was Garrity chosen to moderate...when Atkinson is being sued for right to know violations in deliberative session 2009?"
You are kidding... right?
Ummm, Garrity's legislative role in crafting laws has nothing to do to those who may subsequently break them. Would you also hold him complicit for voting on a drunk driving law that someone subsequently violated?
The poor guy is already being roasted and hasn't even run a meeting yet. What a freakin' witch-hunt this blog is.
The poor guy is already being roasted and hasn't even run a meeting yet. What a freakin' witch-hunt this blog is.
Ya think? This blog consists of a bunch of negative ninnies. They wear the opposite of rose colored glasses. For them, being unhappy is all they know so they project their unhappiness on folks like Jim. It must be a real miserable existance. I almost feel pity for them.
Although much of his voting record is not to my liking, I think Rep. Garrity is a good choice made by some very thoughtful people.
I know that Garrity is on the very active Atkinson Energy Committee and is working on energy planning for the state. When I last looked New Hampshire didn’t have a plan. He is confident, well spoken (a decent tenor), accustomed to regulatory assemblies and familiar with Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA's) state law.
Back to the civics debate. What tools do we need in order to participate to our own satisfaction at the deliberative session?
There are parliamentarians that use this blog, maybe they have some suggestions.
To those who believe Garrity is a poor choice to stand in as Moderator... could you float some names of people you think WOULD be good choices?
I am curious to hear your thoughts.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer on that one. This group isn't about solutions, they're about tearing people down. That's all they know in case you haven't figured it out. Jesus could have been appointed moderator and they would have found something wrong with that choice.
I think Mr. Grant would make a much better moderator myself. I know Mr. Garrity.
I disagree with Mrs. Goodridge. Garrity is a very poor choice.
I think the Town Administrator Smith is doing a great job. He is competant, decent and fair.
What a just moderator he would be conntrasted to "two face" Garrity.
He would stop the cat-calling from the back. Garrity will just wink and waffle and smile.
It was Polito who thought he was Jesus.
Gods gift to humanity. He screwed up deliberative session real good.
He set a new low standard for behavior at meetings by allowing slanderers and pond scum to intimidate voters All Day and All Night.
He will not be missed.
How about Valarie Tobin as Moderator? She seems very dedicated on the budget committee.
The warrants are posted on the Town website.
Two intesting things: The Chief has his explanation prior to his car warrant and there is no time posted for the deliberative session.
I hope the town fixes the thing before they mail it out.
Who was it that yelled at a woman -
"Lady! You have some BALLS!"
The moderator did not take punitive action. And everyone heard that intimidation of a voter at the microphone at deliberative session.
The selectmen sat there and said nothing. By doing so, they individually and in their official capacity, did what they always do. Nothing.
What woman voter who saw that on TV wasn't offended and humiliated? And what about the woman at the microphone? Maybe she can testify.
I don't think anyone will be lining up to testify at any trial. You make it sound like people would be looking forward to such a thing. I doubt anyone would even volunteer.
Can we talk about something else?
I am not happy with Garrity since I saw him laughing at people from the audience two years ago, however, the choice has been made. I will remember not to vote for him again though.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! Voters are already lined up for the new 2010 lawsuit for slander and intimidation by town officials.
They brought it on themselves by flagrant misconduct.
I agree that Ken Grant and Valerie Tobin are good candidates for moderator.
Phil Smith, Town Administrator cannot serve, as I don't believe he is a resident.
I wish Page Brown was up here. Did you hear his inspirational and rousing speech at the Vietnam Memorial dedication at town hall?
OK I remember all of the comments that the police chief made while I was standing at the microphone. Let's drop the subject and make sure no one is subjected to anything like that again.
So far the N H Department of Revenue (DRA) says that the explanation before the car warrant article can be there at deliberative session but not on the warrant come voting day.
I wish that the article for the Historical Society was first in line. They have been in line for a long time. It is purely political that the car warrant and the make Phil Consentino a $100 a year paid Elder Affairs Director are first in line. It is politics, not illegal that I know of. The positioning of warrant articles is part of the political Chess Game.
It doesn’t sit well with me because he has not yet complied with the requests from the Attorney General’s Office to detangle the Elderly Affairs Department from the Police Department.
It was nice to read some pro-active statements on such a dreary January afternoon.
Whoops, again.
I forgot to declare that I am a member of the historical society.
Pat,
Thanks for clearing that up! I feel that Carol Grant would be great in the moderator position.
How about you?
Mrs. Goodridge. This issue of voter intimidation at deliberative session has gone legal. The issue will not be dropped even though you are very generous as to your personal attackers.
Others do not feel generous and are doing something about it.
I must, unfortunately, 2nd the above poster's view about Pat Garrity; he spent at least one deliberative session cackling with the Mafia about the crazy reformists, and he's done it at many BOS meetings.
Has he ever:
...spoken out against the abuse of police powers and selective enforcement, even ONCE? (answer: NO!)
...expressed a single concern about the financial pain of Phil's lawsuit losses? (answer: NO!)
...worked hard in the legislature (his job) to protect this town's water supply from HAWC? (answer: NO!)
...expressed a concern that local businesses and those that earn their keep from them dominate and manipulate decisions that are supposed to preserve the rural quality and property value of our town? (answer: NO!)
While we're asking questions here, can we ask if our Senator (Chuck Morse) has done anything about the above issues?
Then let me ask you: if these people are not representing your interests and working for you, WHY IN GOD's NAME ARE WE VOTING THEM BACK INTO OFFICE?
...
To: 1/25/10 4:45 PM
You raise good points. It was good to have my memory jogged.
It is hard to stay in politics without playing ball with the majority in charge.
I do need to defend my friend ex-senator Chuck Morse. Michael Dowling, Del Dowling's son, from Salem has been our Senator after defeating Chuck a few years ago.
I am satisfied with Mike Dowling’s politics except that he needs to get out of Salem and come to Atkinson more. So although you were wrong about Chuck, your point shines a light on the fact that Mike needs to get acquainted with his constituents in Atkinson.
P.S. I believe that Chuck donated the christmas tree for the town foyer this past December.
While I totally disagreed with Jim Garrity over his praise of that BOS as ethical, and I told him so at the time, I believe he will do the ob well.
When I heard that Frank had resigned, my first thought was Jim Garrity followed by Chuck Morse. Please remember that there are few in town who have the requisite knowledge of, Town meeting law, the RTK, Budget law, and could step in on a two week notice.
The Checklist supervisors had a very short list to choose from, and no time to dither. Martha, Ginny, and Patty, For whatever it is worth, it is my opinion that you chose wisely.
Bye Frank. We'll miss you. NOT!
Spin it however you will but your insurance company sent a clear message. This guy's not worth it!!
Good idea Marc but Chuck Morse lives in Salem NH and cannot serve. His business is in Atkinson.
I am posting this link so that you can get info about our NH state reps and senataor
I believe that I spelled Sen. Downing's name wrong on a previous blog.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/whosmyleg/whosmyresults.asp
Post a Comment