Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Town Of Winchester, BOS Going To Court Over RSA 91-A Violations

A lawsuit filed in Superior Court charges the Winchester Board of Selectmen with violations of the Right To Know Law and an award of attorney fees pursuant to RSA 91-A:7 and Silva v. Blotsch, 121 N.H. 1040 ( 1981) ( remedy of attorney's fees recognized for a public official who prevails in an action to have that public official removed from office.)

Margaret Sharra's vindictive witch hunt to remove Kim Gordon from the Planning Board because she disagreed with violations by the board during the Mitchell hearings and the Selectman's bungling of RSA 91-A protocol and procedure with their non-meeting meeting baloney and their public lynching of Ms. Gordon in written minutes posted on the Towns website, (despite their admittance that Kim Gordon did not violate the law nor do anything legally wrong)  has resulted in another easily avoided litigation in front of a judge. When are the citizens of Winchester going to wake up and stop voting fools and ego-maniacs into office? Enough is enough. If anyone demonstrates a vote of no confidence it is our BOS and Ms. Sharra for their unacceptable conduct in this matter.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

good to see more people standing up for what's right and not being cowered by these bullies we have as public officials.

Anonymous said...

Of course informer you forgot to tell us that Ms. Gordon is not the only one that signed an affidavit. I do believe that Mr. Marsh signed one also. Little facts like this are very important. People need to know how vindictive the "players" in this town are. Perhaps now the tide will turn and we will no longer live in BSRINCHESTER. Perhaps it will be time for new blood to run this town.

the Winchester Informer said...

Yes, Mr. Marsh had voluntarily signed an affidavit in regards to the Towne/Homan v. Town of Winchester Van Dyke mess in a previous court challenge, which has nothing to do with Ms. Gordon's lawsuit. However it does show that the powers that be are very selective when it comes to challenging certain people for their actions against them.

By the way, the town wasted
all that money in court and all that time having meetings as they have recently sent a letter to Robert Van Dyke now denying his application for numerous violations of law and not meeting condition they had set for him. Also he is under a DES order to desist all activities for violating state law. Who's eating crow now?

same ol' same ol' said...

What else is new, they have been sued several times in the past for the exact same thing and settled. Things never change when you have the same group of morons running the show.

Anonymous said...

smug, arrogant and full of themselves. this group never gets it, they just plod along like blind mice daring people to stand up to them or to seek relief from problems create by the other town miscreants. hopefully ms. gordon will prevail and show that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Anonymous said...

Well this just takes the cake we all knew the actions of Mrs. Gordon were going to end up costing us taxpayers more money, She screwed up and now she expects us to pay? who does she think she is.
well on the only good note about this it sure does end any political future she may have thought she had in this town. And by the way, we have all read the letter from the town hall, she was wrong all the way but because they didnt feel like they couldnt remove her doesnt mean she was right in her actions. wonder how she will feel at planning board meeting sitting with a board that voted her off?

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above: Speak for yourself you idiot. Kim was NOT WRONG in what she did, she followed the rules and spoke out to the board; but Sharra refused to listen as did Beaman and his BFF Blodgett and they were the 3 that voted against her, not the whole board. Ruth did not vote, Marsh was absent and Moser voted no.It has been evident for sometime that we have a divided planning board, those that follow the rules and look out for the people in town and the four amigos, Sharra, Ruth, (always named in suits too ) Beaman and Blodget who form a block to do what they want and how they want for the good of themselves. Go to a meeting and watch what goes on, then judge. And she isn't costing the town a dime, it was the selectmen who screwed up costing her money and all because of Sharra again. Know your facts before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Ready to vote said...

Kim could win by a landslide,she was elected to keep an eye on the people we don't think we can trust, and I think she did her job.I think the voters are sick of the strangle hold that a few people have on this town, guess we will find out.

Anonymous said...

I dont see how or why she wants to sue the BOS, They actually saved her butt. The planning board voted her off because she basically is a advocate or "spy" for the opposition and the Selectboard ignored the planning board vote and let her stay.
She should be thanking them not suing them
Why does everyone get things so backwards around here?

Anonymous said...

Would someone please tell me again how the BOS saved Kim's butt? They were the ones that wanted to fire her but found that she had not broken the law. The problem once again is Ms. Sharra. Ms. Sharra wants her way and is a bully. She was a bully when she was on the school board and a bully to the teachers that had her children. Once again a leopard does not change its spots. For those of you that are whining and bitching about the town spending more money on lawsuits suck it up and pay. You were the ones that were afraid to make changes. Most of us that voted against her are hoping that she will let go of her ego and go quickly and quietly. I am afraid that we are stuck with her until she costs the town a million dollars. That too may happen as rumor has it that the bully may sue because someone told her no.

Anonymous said...

You need to learn how to read. The planning board voted Kim off the board and it had to go in front of the BOS for approval, They did not approve it although they did agree that everything she did was wrong and working against the board she was voted to serve and kept her on the planning board. so you tell me how she can now try to sue the BOS. and as far as you saying her lawsuit will not cost us taxpayers, where in the world do you get that? do you think the money will come from the money tree? no it will come out of the towns money and that means taxpayers money.
I'm willing to bet just like all the other stupid frivolous lawsuits this one will be dismissed or she will just plain old not win so far the town has a really good record on all these B.S. lawsuits that come our way.

Mike Towne said...

You're the one that needs to learn how to read, 3 votes doesn't make a majority of the board and there were only 6 members present. None of the alternates were asked their opinions either. Margaret didn't want a full board there as she knew this crap would not fly. This was personal with her, a vendetta. She wanted Kim off of the HDC so her attempt at breaking the regulations she helped write would fly. Guess what it didn't. The foolish selectmen should have dropped this like a hot potato and told Margaret enough; but as we all saw, by Ruth's actions and Sherm's vote and Sepe's diatribe in the meeting minutes, those fools support whatever Sharra wants. Why, what's she got on them? Stop blaming everyone who stands up for their rights and the rights of others for these numerous lawsuits, the problem as we have all seen is Margaret Sharra and her tactics to get her own way whether it be helping a friend get approval for building or attempting to circumvent the regulations to profit herself. Put the blame squarely where it belongs, on a self serving public servant who cares only about what's in it for her; period. As for calling lawsuits frivolous, get a grip you moron, there's a reason they are filed by so many different people, there's a serious problem with the people we have holding office in this town and the way they attempt to control all facets of our town government. It's wrong and these people need to be told so and more people need to come forward and support change, otherwise expect more lawsuits to be filed in the future and more money to be spent defending conduct that is simply unacceptable in any society today.
So get off your soapbox and stop with the blame game and the rah rah crap, get your facts straight and go post your drivel on your own site, we've had enough of your infantile rants

Anonymous said...

Oops I can read. One thing that I do know that in order to remove Kim Gordon from a board there must be a recall vote.So before you get on your soap box and suggest that some of us are uneducated speak for yourself. Yes, Kim has every right to request that the town pay her attorneys fees. She was doing the job that she was elected to do. The fiduciary responsibility. Protect the interests of those that she was elected to represent.
For that and her ability to question and seek the truth Ms. Sharra wanted her removed. Please be advised that once again Ms. Sharra resorted to the bully tactics that have served her well in the past. The only thing that Maggie forgot was that Kim cannot be bullied. Schools have protection against bullies perhaps towns should, too.
In the future please do not even suggest that I am uneducated.

they're all a joke said...

Well if Mrs. Gordon did not violate the law, committed no unlawful acts and simply did what she was suppose to do what else could the selectboard do? To me this was just a smear campaign orchestrated by the biggest problem we have here in Winchester and compounded by 5 fools who would all jump off a roof together if it made them look good.

Richard said...

Now I feel that we should change the law/ordnance/rules, to have to only pay the legal fee's for things that where legitimate errors, not blatant and willing violations of the rules and ethics... Why should we all pay for their really bad judgment?

can't pull the wool over my eyes said...

The problem isn't the rules Richard, it's the people who have been put in charge who continue to break them. This has been a pattern for many years here in Winchester, time and time again. Instead of changing the rules to fit the people in office, we need to change the current regime and find people who will abide by them and be accountable and stop wasting tax payer dollars defending their unlawful conduct in court. You see they don't care how many times they get dragged before a judge, we taxpayers pay for their defense and all court costs out of our tax money, none of them spends a dime defending their actions. The town's legal budget has nearly tripled the past three years, because of those who have been elected, appointed and chosen to run this town who have no respect for the law or the people of Winchester. Their conduct has cost this town thousands of dollars in legal fees and still they continue to shun the rules and laws they are suppose to be following.