Selectmen Corruption, lying and illegality continues.

First let me open by saying that Our selectmen exhibit less than a passing regard for adherance to law. This has been the case for the decade plus that Phil has exerted control over this board, and therefore is no surprise. In my opinion they are liars as well, Oh not  the "Honey that dress looks great on you" type of liars, more along the Hillary Clinton; "It was caused by a spontaneous protest over a video that got out of hand" type of lie.The surprise, and frankly it is somewhat disgusting to watch is the blatant dishonesty and willful corruption of Mr. Grosky, himself a Lawyer, and Prosecutor. Given his training and education, as well as the professional canon of ethics Lawyers are supposed to subscribe to, he has the knowledge that precludes any claims of ignorance, lack of understanding, or the ever proclaimed necessity for "legal opinion". Which brings us to last night's litany of corruption.

We begin by noting that the Selectmen posted a Non Public meeting under RSA 91-A:3,II,e. "legal" to precede the public meeting.

When this meeting began Town Counsel, Sumner Kalman showed up for the meeting. The selectmen REFUSED to obey the stated law by opening the public meeting and voting to go into Non public, even though specifically asked if they were going to do this by Mr. Artus. Mr. Baldwin stated that they were just meeting with their attorney. Sorry, Billy, as you SHOULD know, whenever you have a quorum of the board, you have a meeting. As you SHOULD know, even if the meeting occurs in Sumners office, it must be posted and minutes kept. AND according to RSA 91-A:3, you MUST open the public meeting and make an on the record vote to go into Non public for the exemption that applies. You failed to obey this particular law. I wonder why?

Now,  RSA91-A:3, II,e. states as follows;

" (e) Consideration or negotiation of pending claims or litigation which has been threatened in writing or filed by or against the public body or any subdivision thereof, or by or against any member thereof because of his or her membership in such public body, until the claim or litigation has been fully adjudicated or otherwise settled. Any application filed for tax abatement, pursuant to law, with any body or board shall not constitute a threatened or filed litigation against any public body for the purposes of this subparagraph."

As there are no active lawsuits, of which we are aware, nor any "threatened in writing" We wonder how this was a LEGAL non public meeting? BTW, just for the record, when they emerged from this quasi non public, they never closed the non public before opening the public meeting.

As Mr. Grosky authored a letter to the Conflict of Interest committee, advising them(BTW WHEN did the selectmen authorize Mr. Grosky to  write that letter?, It seems no meeting held nor vote taken to do so, Well chalk that up under the illegality column) That the ONLY allowable reason to go into Non public for legal was to discuss an ACTIVE lawsuit or one threatened in writing, Both Mr. Groski and the Board upon which he sits clearly knows, the purpose and limitation of this law, but CHOOSE to ignore it for themselves.

And before they parade their usual lies about this meeting it should be pointed out that the Conflict of Interest committee while they have discussed among themselves the idea of a Court filing to force the selectmen to  obey the law, They have NOT put this into writing to  the Selectmen. The other oft mentioned legal matter is the Selectmens wish to Forego the fines won in Court against the Osbornes, but yet to be paid. So much for their Fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers. However this, too does not  qualify under RSA91-A:3,II,e. as the matter had been fully adjudicated(Presumably Mr. Groski, in his profession DOES KNOW what that word means). These matters would be the subject of a PUBLIC meeting, not a non public, but what is the law to our dictators?

Later in the meeting our erstwhile governing body whipped out new shiny RSA books to read RSA31;39a, the enabling statute that allowed the town to establish the Conflict of interest committee. These men were intellectually challenged to understand the simple meaning of the Statute, even the Attorney Mr. Groski, Pull up a chair Jason your education is about to begin;

" 31:39-a Conflict of Interest Ordinances. – The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed. Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees, establishing incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office. Any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption. The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section."

Readers please note the simple text of the above Statute which confused out Attorney/Prosecutor/Selectman. Lets take this point by point for Mr. Groski. who proclaimed it confusing and ambiguous due to the profusion of the word "MAY";

"The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed." This simply means the State authorizes the legislative body of  the Town(Jason, that means the VOTERS) to esablish a Conflict of Interest ordinance if they so desire. In Atkinson We did.

"Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees, establishing incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office." This simply means that the Ordinance once established may set out requirements for disclosure, prohibited conducts, and punishments that exceed those enumerated by State law. Are you following this, Jason?

"Any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption" This is the typical phase in clause.

Now Jason, PAY ATTENTION, THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART;

" The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section."  This means that when removal is the recommendation, PARTICULARLY of a selectman, the fellow selectmen may not decide upon their  own what punishment will be, That, too  would be a conflict. They SHALL, note that word, Jason, which in legalese allows no wiggle room, they SHALL pass it on to the Superior Court which has sole jurisdiction over removal proceedings.

So ends our lesson, As we said they read this statute on camera. proclaiming it confusing, ambiguous, and requiring of legal opinion. A Little late, Jason you claimed you had already gotten legal opinion and spent $2,285 for ELEVEN HOURS of it,back in March on this  very topic. And the taxpayers wonder why Atkinson spends so much on legal fees.

By the way, just to reveal another lie, a couple of months ago, Mr. Groski stated on camera that the voters defeated a $5,000 legal line for conflict of interest a couple of years ago. This was a lie, what would have been true, would have been to admit that the SELECTMEN wanted a CAPITAL RESERVE FUND established for legal purposes a couple of years ago, and it failed by one vote.

It is an utter travesty that we allow these actions to continue. Mr. Morse seems to be the most honest of this corrupt board, Unfortunately Mr. Friel has done a complete 180 in the last 5 years, and now routinely joins the corrupt triumverate of Consentino, Groski, and Baldwin, in their efforts to do whatever they wish without regard for law. When you consider the background of these men; An attorney and public prosecutor, a Police Lt. former school board chair, and selectman, and a Former long term police chief, selectman, and director of elderly affairs, recently fired for cause, pursuant to a sexual harassment complaint of a female employee young enough to be his daughter, NOT ONE of these men have any excuse for their behavior.

Budget Committee screws the pooch

For those with a military background, You will understand the title. For the rest of you, it means a screw up. Tuesday evening the Budget committee had one of the shortest public hearings on record. in a short 90 minutes they managed to go through the budget and warrant articles. Oh how we long for the days of Jane Cole, Brian Boyle, and Mark Acciard as Budcom chairs, when the law was adhered to, procedure followed, every budget line was read aloud, and everything was open and transparent, but, of course that takes a little longer than 90 minutes.

However, I digress, it was at the end of this 90 minute public hearing that something extraordinary happened. The BudCom that wrote and prepared the budget could not agree to vote for it and pass it onto the legislative body for ratification. When it came time to vote for the budget the vote was split 3-3. A TIE!. This has never before happened. Since the Budcom could not agree to approve the budget they, on camera, motioned and approved a decision to recess and continue the meeting to last night at 7pm, in the hopes that they would be able to get ahold of Harold Morse to break the tie.

Now let the pooch screwing commence. ACTV had a notice posted yesterday announcing that 10 minutes after the cameras were turned off, Tuesday night, the Budcom met again, and voted NOT to continue the meeting until last night. According to informed sources this was done on the august legal advice of Barbara Snicer, whose immense legal talents are not to be questioned. She apparently advised the Budcom that they did not need to vote on the budget to pass it onto the Legislative body.

Unfortunately, Ms. Snicer(where did she obtain her law degree? Cracker Jacks?) is wrong. According to LAW, The Budcom must have a public hearing 25 days prior to Town Meeting. This public hearing was only 11 days prior, First mistake. At the public hearing, the Budcom may choose to continue, or hold a second public hearing to resolve matters, or when the meeting runs past midnight. IF, they declare the date and time of the subsequent meeting during the first public hearing, the requirement to post notice of the meeting for 7 days is waived. IF they DO NOT, decide this during public session at the first meeting, then the second meeting must have notice posted 7 days in advance of the second meeting.

So, here is how we now stand, Having failed to pass a budget the town LEGALLY has no budget for the legislative body to discuss or approve at Town meeting. The second meeting after the cameras were turned off on Tuesday night was likely illegal as it had not been posted, there was no legal reason for a non public, and the meeting had formally been continued to the following night. Ms. Snicer should refrain from giving any more colossally stupid legal advice. AND last but certainly not least in order for this to be rectified LEGALLY, another meeting would have to be posted. Public hearings require 7 day posting notification, meaning if posted today the meeting could not take place until the 28th, preventing the proper time for posting of the warrant prior to town meeting.

NOW, I should also point out that this is somewhat academic as the NH Dept. of Revenue Administration is utterly useless at enforcing their own laws, and likely would not prevent the town's budget from being presented over these violations of law. Remember in TODAY'S political climate the law ONLY matters when your opponents violate it. Those familiar with Atkinson's political elite, have observed this maxim first hand.

TRSD has a VERY bad day at Court

For those with inquiring minds, Donna Green's Right to Know case against TRSD went to Court yesterday. Mr. Metzler was not a happy camper. The District's cast of high priced attorneys also put on a less then stellar performance.

The Court rightly understood immediately that the District is applying a unique standard to Ms. green's requests. The Court also was not happy that the District would violate state law when asked for info from a member of the governing body. At one point, the Court asked if Mr. Metzler had to put in a formal request and pay for copies.

The District's attorneys studiously avoided directly answering the Courts repeated questions about where these records are kept at the moment, not wanting to admit that they are on the computer, thereby destroying their argument that they can not provide them in electronic form.

When asked why they print everything out and demand payment for each page, the Attorney responded; it is the District's policy, to which the Court responded, you have a policy that violates State Law?

Mr. Metzler left the hearing early, probably to pop Gaviscon like it was candy. His cocky policy left in tatters on the Court floor.