Grant To Help Revive Historic Ashuelot Library

Thanks to the efforts of Julia Ferrari the library is now a part of New Hampshire Historic Registry and will be receiving a grant to help with restoration and a new paint job.... Story from the Keene Sentinel

ASHUELOT – It’s been serving the community for more than 100 years – and thanks to some state funding, the Thayer Public Library may well be around for another century.

A $10,000 grant from the N.H. Moose Plate Program will pay for a much-needed exterior paint job on the nearly 200-year old building on Route 119 in Ashuelot, opposite the covered bridge.

According to the program’s Web site, grant funds are raised through the purchase of conservation license plates (“moose plate”) to promote or protect the state’s natural, cultural and historic resources.

The structure, built in 1823in the Greek revival style, was a home donated as a library in 1902 by Julia Thayer.

The library is located on the ground floor with the librarians’ living quarters on the second floor.  Thayer, who grew up in Ashuelot, was a philanthropist and wife of Edward Thayer, who owned a woolen mill in town.  The couple also donated the building that now houses the Keene Public Library.  One of her stipulations in donating the Thayer Public Library was that the building remain a library. 

Over the years, the library was the location of historical lectures, children’s story hours, and about 20 years ago, it housed meetings to revive Winchester’s early 20^th century newspaper, The Winchester Star, according to Julia Ferrari, library trustee and the writer of the successful grant application from the state license plate program.

Recently, she added the local Grange chapter and a poetry group have expressed interest in using the library for meetings and poetry readings.

To ensure the library will remain a resource for many years to come, some restoration had to be done.  Using money from the library’s trust fund, repairs are almost finished.  Ferrari said about 95 percent of the building’s clapboards were in good shape, so only a few rotted ones had to be replace, while minor structural repairs on some beams are also under way. 

Ferrari knew that if the building was considered of historic value by the state, any restoration projects would be eligible for grants.  She applied early this year, and the library was later named to the N.H. State Register of Historic Places.  It is also situated within Winchester’s historic district.  The library also received about $2,000 annually from the town of Winchester that is used toward heating the building.

Any restoration projects need to be in line with the library’s historic listing and location, which means painting the clapboard exterior, rather than installing vinyl siding.  “We didn’t want it to lose its historic façade.” Ferrari said, speaking on behalf of her fellow trustees.  “It’s simple and austere.”

The new paint job is slated for spring.  Bids are still being accepted, and the hope is that the grant money will pay for all of the work.  There have been virtually no changes made to the library’s interior since 1902.  Much of the furniture in the reading room and even a few of the books in the collection are the same as when Thayer put them there.  “It’s as if time has stopped,” Ferrari said.

Ferrari believes the library’s value is in preserving that history – for example, its collection of books on New Hampshire’s heritage.  Other improvements under consideration are updating the library’s collection, adding computers with online access and expanding the number of days and hours the library is open.  “We’re trying to bring the library back to being alive,” Ferrari said, adding that the library was situated to be within walking distance of users.  “We want to get the community coming back, so we have to rethink what a tiny library offers.  I think it’s possible.”

Merry Christmas to All !

We would like to wish all of our faithful supporters and those of you who have contributed to this blog, a very safe and happy holiday.

                                                   

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;

And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,

And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;

    Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! Now, Prancer and Vixen!
    On, Comet! On Cupid! On, Donner and Blitzen!
    To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
    Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,

 So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,

Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;

A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes -- how they twinkled! His dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow; 

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,

"Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

Revised Selectmen's Warrant Petitions

This is a revised list of the selectmen's warrants. It would seem that our publishing their earlier list has raised some concerns and that they have made some changes, though not with their ability to continuously add more and more spending to their agenda. I guess they all feel Winchester is some sort of a booming metropolis. How else do they explain their current mentality of spend more than the town's people can afford, year after year?

                                         
To the inhabitants of the Town of Winchester, in the County of Cheshire in said state, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Saturday the 30th of January next 2010 at nine o’clock in the forenoon to discuss, debate and amend warrant articles #1 through #         and to receive the reports of the selectmen, town treasurer and other town officers including the agents and committees and act thereon.  Final vote will be by the official ballot on Tuesday, March 9, 2010.  

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Tuesday, the 9th of March next 2010 at eight o’clock in the forenoon to act upon the following subjects.  The Polls not to close an hour earlier than seven of the clock in the afternoon.

ARTICLE 1.    To choose all necessary Town Officers for the ensuing year.

ARTICLE 2.    Shall the Town of Winchester raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $                ?  Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $            , which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town of Winchester or by law or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen -
Recommended by the Budget Committee -


ARTICLE 3.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $545,500.00 for the purpose of preparing plans and specifications for additional work required for the reconstruction of the Winchester Wastewater Treatment Plant that will qualify the Town for Federal and State funds; $300,000.00 of such sum to come from a federal State Tribal Aid Grant (“STAG”), which the Town is hereby authorized to accept; and $245,500.00 such sum to be raised by the Town’s issuance of serial bonds and notes under and in compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (NH RSA 33:1 et seq as amended), including any borrowing from the State Revolving Fund, so called established pursuant to RSA 486:14; and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes, to determine the interest rate thereon, and to take such actions as may be necessary to effect the issuance, negotiation, sale and delivery of such bonds or notes as shall be in the best interest of the Town of Winchester.  Without impairing the nature of such bonds, notes or loans as a general obligation of the Town, it is the intention and expectation of the Board of Selectmen that the principal and interest thereon shall be paid by the users of the sewer system.

To be enacted, this article requires a 3/5 vote.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 4.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $500,000.00 for the purpose of preparing plans and specifications, and for the construction of a new bridge to replace the closed bridge over Wheelock Brook on Old Westport Road, that will qualify the Town to receive 80% matching funds from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation;  $100,000.00 of such sum to come from sums already on deposit in the non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund established at the 2006 Town Meeting under Warrant Article [19]; and $400,000.00 of such sum to come from  a proposed grant from the State Department of Transportation, which the Town is hereby authorized to accept.

(This article will not impact taxation.)

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 5.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $317,400.00 for the purpose of reconstructing the westside downtown Main Street sidewalks and to install new sidewalks from downtown to Kulick’s Shopping Center, including a pedestrian bridge crossing over Mirey Brook (the “Project”); $63,480.00 of such sum to be raised by general taxation; and $253,920.00 of such sum to be raised from a proposed Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant (the “Grant”), which the Town is hereby authorized to accept; and to further authorize the Town to issue up to $253,920.00 in serial bonds and notes, under and in compliance with provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (NH RSA 33:1 et seq as amended), to finance the cost of the Project pending the receipt of the Grant;  and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the interest rate thereon and the other terms thereof as shall be in the best interests of the Town.

To be enacted, this article requires a 3/5 vote.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 6.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $250,000.00 to finish chip-sealing approximately 9 miles of newly-shimmed roads, which are:  Woodard Avenue, Ashuelot Street, Old Chesterfield Road, Pudding Hill Road, Rabbit Hollow Road, Forest Lake Road, South Scofield Mountain Road, South Parrish Road, and Mine Road?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 7.        To see if the Town will authorize the Selectmen to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $65,000.00, to be paid in 3 annual principal and interest payments of $23,175.00 for the purpose of purchasing a 2011 Ford 1-ton dump truck, with central hydraulics system, flat bed dump body and plow set-up?  At the end of the 3-year lease agreement, no additional payment will be required and the Town will own the truck.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 8.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $40,000.00 for the Town’s share of State road grant reconstruction costs for bridges and place it in the non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 19 for that purpose?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-0, with 4 abstentions

Article 9.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of up to $25,000.00 for the cleaning, repair, and refinishing of the concrete retaining wall at the Town Beach?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 10.    To see if the Town will raise and appropriate $24,800.00 as the fifth and final lease-to-purchase payment for the 2007 International dump truck, plow, and sander package?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0

ARTICLE 11.     To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $22,760.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 16 at the 2006 Town Meeting for the purpose of performing the assessing update or revaluation of the real estate in the Town of Winchester scheduled for 2015?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 8-3

ARTICLE 12.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate an amount not to exceed $18,000.00 to be deposited in the Evergreen Expendable General Care Trust Fund established by an affirmative vote by the 1998 Town Meeting as Article 11; the source of these funds to be withdrawn from the surplus generated by the perpetual care funds already established for the care and maintenance of lots within the Evergreen cemetery, and not from taxation.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-0, with 2 abstentions

ARTICLE 13.     To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 7 at the 2009 Town Meeting for the purpose of future upgrades and/or purchase of the town’s computers and networking system?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 6-5

ARTICLE 14.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Police Cruiser Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 14?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-4

ARTICLE 15.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Fire Department non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of purchasing new fire apparatus, established at the March 2005 Town Meeting under Article 21 for that purpose?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3-2
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

ARTICLE 16.    To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $6,000.00 to support the annual Pickle Festival?  

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -

Selectmen Attempting To Remove All Checks and Balances

 It would seem that our Selectmen are tired of butting heads with the Budget Committee over runaway spending and unnecessary purchases and instead of working with them to come up with a sound and fair town budget each year, they want full control and are going to attempt to get their way.

Article 16. 
Are you in favor of rescinding the Municipal Budget Act as defined under RSA 32:14?

Our Town Selectmen are attempting to circumvent our system of checks and balances by removing the town budget committee process; asking the voters to pass a town warrant to do just that. By rescinding the Municipal Budget Act, it would allow allow the town's Moderator, Ken Harvey or Henry Parkhurst to appoint a so-called Finance Committee, the number of members at large and who these members would be. Can we trust our selectmen to oversee this committee and to pick trustworthy members that will look out for the best interest of the town? Stop and think for a minute, do you really want to give them that much more power to control all of the town's finance's with no option to hold them in check? You know darn right well they will appoint people from their inner circle of friends and supporters who will approve their every want and wish list, with no regard for the citizen's of Winchester. Do you really want to put these people on a committee to approve and oversee our budget? If this subdivision is adopted we will most certainly loose control of our town finances according to article IV.

The Budget Committee is far from perfect; but it takes the control away from the Selectmen.
and gives us hope that someone is watching out for our best interests.


32:14 Adoption. –
I. This subdivision may be adopted:
(a) By any town with a town meeting form of government, including those with a budgetary town meeting, official ballot town meeting, or representative town meeting

 IV. If the vote is favorable, the town or district shall at that same meeting vote, by ballot or other means, determine the number of members-at-large, as provided in RSA 32:15, I, and whether they shall be elected or appointed by the moderator.

This is a dangerous petition for all of us and should be defeated with a resounding vote of NO. Don't be fooled by the propaganda they will spew about how passing this warrant will benefit the town and all of us, it most certainly will not.

The Real Reason Our Property Tax Rate Dropped

As we reported on our main page a few days back, the Selectmen had nothing to do with the reduction in the property tax rate, despite what you may have heard. An article written by Sarah Palermo in the Keene Sentinel confirmed what we had reported earlier.

"Drop in tuition students means decrease in Winchester tax rate"


WINCHESTER - The property tax rate in Winchester is down, largely because fewer students from Winchester attended Keene High School in 2008-2009 than anticipated.

The total rate fell from $28.27 last year to $26.94, a drop of 4.7 percent.

The town, state education and county portions of the tax rate all rose, but they were offset by a decrease of $1.50 in the school portion.

School officials estimate the number of students for the coming school year based on current enrollments in the 8th through 11th grades. However, in the summer of 2008, months after the budge was st, the number of students dropped from about 230 to about 200.

NOTE: Isn't it amazing that just 30 students would drop the rate by $1.50?

The savings in tuition went back to the taxpayers, lowering the tax rate, according to Winchester School District Business Manager Thomas P. O'Connor.

The town's ratio of assessment is 100 percent, meaning that, on average, a house that is assessed at $200,000 would sell for that amount, and its owner would pay an annual tax bill of $5,388.

NOTE: I bet you would find that NO houses are selling for what they are listed/assessed at...for 2009.

Of every $26.94 in taxes collected in Winchester.

> $7.09 goes to the town government, up 8 cents, or 1.1 percent, from last year's rate of $7.01.

This will raise $1,995,187 for the town.

> $14.72 goes to local school taxes, down $1.50, or 9.2 percent, from last year's rate of $16.22. This will raise $4,148,250 for local schools.

> $2.35 goes to the state educational tax, up 8 cents, or 3.5 percent, from last year's rate of $2.27. This will raise $636,669 for the state.

> $2.78 goes to Cheshire County, up 1 cent, or 0.4 percent, from last year's rate of $2.77.
This will raise $784,530 to support the county jail, nursing home and other services.

In total, Winchester will raise $7,496,536 in taxes, down $438,029 from last year.

Tax bill were mailed on November 24, and are due January 4.

2010 Selectmen's Proposed Warrants

This is an incomplete partial list of the town's warrants to be placed on the ballot for 2010


TOWN MEETING WARRANT
SB2
TOWN OF WINCHESTER
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

To the inhabitants of the Town of Winchester, in the County of Cheshire in said state, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Saturday the 30th of January next 2010 at nine o’clock in the forenoon to discuss, debate and amend warrant articles #1 through # and to receive the reports of the selectmen, town treasurer and other town officers including the agents and committees and act thereon. Final vote will be by the official ballot on Tuesday, March 9, 2010.

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Tuesday, the 9th of March next 2010 at eight o’clock in the forenoon to act upon the following subjects. The Polls not to close an hour earlier than seven of the clock in the afternoon.



ARTICLE 1. To choose all necessary Town Officers for the ensuing year.

ARTICLE 2. [$300,000.00 for matching STAG]


To be enacted, this article requires a 3/5 vote.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen
Recommended by the Budget Committee



ARTICLE 3. [$817,000.00 Wheelock Brook Bridge Replacement: 80% from NHDOT, 20% from Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve]

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen -
Recommended by the Budget Committee -


ARTICLE 4. Shall the Town of Winchester raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $ ? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $ , which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town of Winchester or by law or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen -
Recommended by the Budget Committee -


ARTICLE 5. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $40,000.00 for the Town’s share of State road grant reconstruction costs for bridges and place it in the non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 19 for that purpose?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-0, with 4 abstentions


ARTICLE 6. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $22,760.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 16 at the 2006 Town Meeting for the purpose of performing the assessing update or revaluation of the real estate in the Town of Winchester scheduled for 2015?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 8-3


ARTICLE 7. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate $24,800.00 as the fifth and final lease-to-purchase payment for the 2007 International dump truck, plow, and sander package?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0


ARTICLE 8. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 7 at the 2009 Town Meeting for the purpose of future upgrades and/or purchase of the town’s computers and networking system?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 6-5


ARTICLE 9. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $6,000.00 to support the annual Pickle Festival?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee -



ARTICLE 10. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate an amount not to exceed $18,000.00 to be deposited in the Evergreen Expendable General Care Trust Fund established by an affirmative vote by the 1998 Town Meeting as Article 11; the source of these funds to be withdrawn from the surplus generated by the perpetual care funds already established for the care and maintenance of lots within the Evergreen cemetery, and not from taxation.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-0, with 2 abstentions



ARTICLE 11. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Police Cruiser Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 14?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-4


ARTICLE 12. To see if the Town will authorize the Selectmen to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $65,000.00, to be paid in 3 annual principal and interest payments of $23,175.00 for the purpose of purchasing a 2011 Ford 1-ton dump truck, with central hydraulics system, flat bed dump body and plow set-up? At the end of the 3-year lease agreement, no additional payment will be required and the Town will own the truck.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee

Article 13. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of up to $25,000.00 for the cleaning, repair, and refinishing of the concrete retaining wall at the Town Beach?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee


Article 14. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $250,000.00 to finish chip-sealing approximately 9 miles of newly-shimmed roads, which are: Woodard Avenue, Ashuelot Street, Old Chesterfield Road, Pudding Hill Road, Rabbit Hollow Road, Forest Lake Road, South Scofield Mountain Road, South Parrish Road, and Mine Road?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee


Article 15. To see if the Town would be in favor of removing 52 streetlights at various locations within the Town?


Article 16.

Are you in favor of rescinding the municipal budget act as defined under RSA 32:14?

To see if the town will vote to place 67% of the revenue generated from the tower to be located on town property in the conservation fund in accordance with RSA 31:113, and the balance to be deposited in the general fund. Further, to vote to reduce the amount of revenue generated by the land use change tax to be placed in the conservation fund from 75% to 50%?

Editorial comment: thereby reducing the total average payment into the conservation fund from tax revenues.

Important Dates and Timeline to 2010 Town Meeting

NOVEMBER:

11/09/2009 First Day to Accept petition articles for zoning ordinances, historic
district building codes for 20010 Town Meeting 675:4;40:13 VII

DECEMBER:

12/09/2009 Last Day to Accept petition articles for zoning ordinances, historic
district building codes for 2009 Town Meeting 675:4;40:13 VII

12/25/2009 Last Day to post and publish notice for first hearing on proposed
adoption or amendment of zoning ordinance, historic district, building codes.
If a 2nd hearing is anticipated RSA 675:3;675:7:40:13,II-a(c)

JANUARY:

01/04/2010 Department Heads reports due to Bob Gray for Town Report.

01/05/2010 Last Day to hold first public hearing on adoption or amendment of zoning ordinances, historic district, building codes. If a 2nd public hearing is anticipated. RSA 675:3;40:13, II –a (c)

01/08/2010 Last Day to post and publish final planning board public hearing on proposed adoption or amendment on zoning ordinances, historic district, building codes. If a 2nd public hearing is anticipated. RSA 675:3;40:13, II –a (c)

01/08/2010 Last Day of governing body to vote to extend polling hours at March 09 elections. RSA 659:4-a,IV(reduction of polling requires vote by Board Selectman)

01/12/2010 Last Day to publish notice, time place and subject of public hearing on bond or note issues over $100,000 RSA 33:8-a,I;40:13,II-a(c)

01/__/2010 Budget Committee’s public hearing on town budget. After the public hearing, the Budget committee will meet to recommend their budget, or recess to another date to meet to recommend their budget. Meeting to be held at the Town Hall.

01/12/2010 Last Day for voters to petition Selectmen to include an article in the town meeting warrant (does the subject matter need a public hearing?) RSA 39:3;40:13,II-a (b)

01/12/2010 Last Day to publish notice of January 19 session for correction of the checklist (required on day before opening of candidate filing period) RSA:654:27;669:5


01/__/2010 Budget Committee Hearing on the School Budget – School

01/16/2010 If a session to correct the checklist is on the 23rd in your town this is the last day post and publish newspaper notice of the time, place and day. RSA 669:5;654:27-:28


01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on adoption or amendment of Zoning Ordinances, Historic District Ordinance or Building Code, Planning Board must determine final form. RSA 675:3;40:13,II-a (c). An official copy of proposal must be placed on file in the Town Clerk Office no latter than the 5th Tuesday before town meeting (February 3rd) must also be prepared in time for posting of the warrant (last day is 01/26/2009) RSA 675:3;40;13,II-a (c) (d).

01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on annual budget

01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on note issue or bond over $100,00. Hearing can be held no earlier than 60 days before 1st session. RSA 33:8-a,I;40:13,II –a (c).

01/19/2010 Supervisors must hold a session to correct the checklist day before the opening of candidate filing period.

1/20/2010 First Day to file for office for local offices. (last day 01/29/2010)

01/23/2010 If the session to correct the checklist will be on January 30th this is the last day to post and publish newspaper notice of the date, time and place.


01/25/2010 Last Day for Selectmen to post warrant and budget at all polling places and at Town Clerks office or town hall. Warrant shall state place date and hour for each of the two sessions for the 2nd session the warrant shall also state day hour of the election hours polls open and close, and which items are to be voted on by ballot. RSA 40:13,II and II –a (d)

01/29/2010 Last Day to File for Office for local officials

01/30/2010 Last Day to correct checklist if your meeting falls on February 6th at a minimum the supervisors must be meet between 11-11:30 the checklist must posted by midnight February 6th.

01/30/2010 First Session of the Deliberative Session to be held at the Town Hall beginning at 9:00AM.

FEBRUARY:

02/02/2010 Last Day official copy of final proposal to adopt or amend Zoning Ordinances, Historic District or Building Code to be placed on file at the Town Clerks Office. RSA:67:3,V


02/09/2010 Last Day for Supervisors to post Town Meeting Checklist in the Town Clerk office or in the Town Hall. Notice must also be published in the newspaper 7 days prior to session.

02/20/2010 Last Day to publish notice in the newspaper, of February 28 session to correct checklist. 654:27;669:5;40:13,VII

02/27/2010 Last Day for Town Clerk to accept vote registration for 2nd session.

02/27/2010 Supervisors to hold session for correction of checklist for 2nd session of annual meeting at a minimum 11- 11:30 no correction or additions may made after this session until election day.

MARCH:

03/02/2010 Annual town report with budget must be available.

03/2/2010 Last Day to submit zoning ordinance protest petitions to require 2/3 vote at town meeting. RSA 675:5;40:13,VII

03/05/2010 Last Day for Supervisors to post final corrected checklist

03/09/2010 Second Session (Final Voting) on warrant articles and budget

John Stetser and Hillsborough Selectmen Brought To Task.

It would seem Winchester is not alone when it comes to having issues with our Selectmen. Here's an interesting article that was sent in to us in regards to our former town manager.


Hillsborough Selectmen challenged to set record right
Thu, 11/05/2009 - 20:45
Hillsborough
Group of Seven focuses on illegal appropriations
By Michael Pon

An informal assembly of Hillsborough Residents, who refer to themselves as the Group of Seven, is challenging the board of selectmen to set the record straight on the matter of $147,000 that was appropriated to renovate the Community Center Building to house the town offices. They want to see a warrant article put on the upcoming warrant for the annual town meeting that will formerly set the record straight.
Russell Galpin, the town moderator, is the spokesman for the Group of Seven, which is comprised of Arlene Johns, Gail and Bob Johnson, Tom McClure, Ann Mooney and Bob Thomas.
They are also concerned about several other appropriations the selectmen made that they consider to be inappropriate, including expense vouchers for meals and hotel rooms, the purchase of a laptop computer, a town vehicle, questions bout a town audit, a multi-year contract, and the duties of the town administrator.
They complain, in a list of grievances, that town administrator John Stetser did not fulfill his duty to prepare the town budget for 2009.
“Since he could not answer questions about items in the budget at town meeting, it was very obvious that he did not know about the items or the reasons from them in that budget,” they state.
The Group of Seven originally confronted the selectmen about these issues on Aug. 11, 2009. Since then, both former chairman of the selectmen, Paul Haley, and current chairman Joe Collins have both responded to the charges, but their explanations, which cite an “emergency” that prompted them to make the renovations to the Community Center, have not been accepted as sound by the Group.
“What they’ve got to do is put a warrant article in the 2010 town meeting for a deficit appropriation for the $147,003,” said Galpin. “That would legally give them back the money they spent, which is now a deficit. They’ve snuck it into the budget, and they think that is perfectly legal, but the Department of Revenue Administration says it’s not.”
Although Haley and Collins claim the move to renovate town hall was done under pressure from Max Schultz, the State Fire Marshal, to move the town offices out of the basement of the Fuller Public Library building, the Group of Seven insists there was no language in Schultz’ letter to the selectmen, written in May 2008, that states any emergency in the building – only that he wanted to see progress made toward bringing the building up to fire and safety codes.
Galpin suspects that Haley did not want to apply to the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) and Superior Court for an emergency town meeting to appropriate the funds because the request would have been denied, based on the content of Schultz’ letter.
According to Galpin, the $147,003 in question has been entered in the ‘Official Report of the Appropriations Voted,’ for the town budget of 2009 under account #34194, General Government Buildings, an account meant for town building maintenance and repairs. However, Galpin maintains the renovations made to the Community Building, resulting in a small office complex and meeting room on the first floor is a Capital Expense, cannot legally be assigned to that account.
According to the research the Group of Seven has done, the money to cover the expenses of the renovations was transferred from several accounts within the budget. They admit that the selectmen do have authority to transfer from one account to another within the budget when necessary, and within prescribed limits, but they point out that the renovations were a Capital Expenditure and not part of the general budget. They also maintain, in a list of grievances, that this or any Capital Expenditure “has to be approved by the voters in the same manner as the purchase of a major piece of equipment or a road reconstruction project. According the DRA, it is against the law to transfer money from the budget to any expenditure outside the budget.”
The Group of Seven wants the selectmen to contact the DRA and get the $147,003 renovation expense properly accounted for and the money properly appropriated.
They want the current selectmen to “tell the people” that this is being done, so that at least they are admitting to it and putting books straight.
Although, selectman Lou Ann Rousseau was not on the board at the time these decisions were made by the selectmen, the Group of Seven has said it wants to confer with Rob Buker, who was on the board at the time, yet does not seem to have been informed of these actions by Haley and Collins.
Buker is now back on the board of selectmen after retiring last March. He was appointed to fill Haley’s seat, who recently stepped down for health reasons.
--------------------

Forced To Make A Change

Unfortunately due to the disruptive person with the childish mind who insists on not only personally attacking Mr. Keenan, ignoring our requests that he stop, we've had to make a change to the way you all are allowed to post your comments.
This person has taken pleasure in duplicating his raves and rantings and has begun harassing the site all in the name of protecting the town and it's problems which we have been discussing here on the blog.
For the time being until this person is identified and charged for his adolescent behavior, we are forced to implement a form of moderation which will be done by the owners and which will only be singling out duplicate postings to stop the nonsense. We apologize for having to do this and for the delay you may see before your comment is published.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask..

The Informer

From The Desk Of John Keenan .. Part #2

This afternoon we received a request to post another of Mr. Keenan's comments to the BOS. At last night's meeting Mr. Keenan spoke to the board and raised the following issues;

1> He continues to be concerned about the malfeasance and incompetence of Margaret Sharra, chairperson of the town's Planning Board, who has caused now over $20,000.00 in legal fees on the Van Dyke matter. She should not be allowed to keep calling Barton Mayer, our town attorney, all of the time to keep getting his opinion. Upon, a reply by attorney Mayer, the reply should be copied to all planning board members, so that all members have the information provided in front of them to make an informed decision and specifically not just Margaret's interpretation.

In addition all planning board members should have access to all information and any weekly updates one hour prior to the meeting. Even Boy Scouts are prepared.

2> Conflict of interest and failure to recuse herself and failure to not allow anyone else to be the secretary to the Planning Board. She was formally employed by Earl Beamon and Dean Beamon is also on the board and there is upon information and belief that Kathy Beamon is also a cousin of Margaret and she is the step-mother of Dean Beamon.

Therefore; whenever Beamon matters are heard , Dean Beamon and Margaret Sharra must properly recuse themselves from participating in the meetings and remove themselves from the room. In the past, Margaret has remained sitting at the chair, directed the meetings, led the discussion, instructed the board and asked the applicant questions on behalf of the board.

3> She should be sanctioned for her incompetent conduct at minimum one half of the total legal fees on the Van Dyke case. As of this date, November 19th, 2009, the amount is over $20,000.00.

4> The Planning Board, has been referring to Carl Hagstrom as a Certified Soil Scientist for the State of New Hampshire; however he only has one license in NH and that is for a Wetland's Specialist only. Hagstrom, does not have the authority by the State to do wetland delineations on Mr. Van Dyke's or any other project. Can you imagine, what a judge in Superior Court or Supreme Court would do with this information if brought to their attention?

5> Regarding temper tantrums, hissy fits, and bad hair days by Margaret. On or about 2-3 years back, Dennis Whitcomb, another citizen of Winchester, had a disagreement with Margaret Sharra, to which she started screaming and threatening to call the police, and yelling at Dennis. This is unprofessional conduct.

In the Van Dyke matter, Sharra has been so unprofessional, as to continually interrupt the main two abutters and has threatened to call the police and in fact 3 officers were at one planning board meeting.

If you had a calm, professional chairman of the board, who would calmly hear all sides and be considerate to everyone, at least in the Van Dyke matter, you would not have over $20,000.00 in legal fees as of today's date with a possible motion for contempt coming up in Keene Superior Court for Margaret's direct flouting of judge Tucker's order of August 28, 2009.

Mr. Michael Towne was sent a certified letter for a hearing from the board scheduled for October 5th, 2009 @ 6:00pm. Mr Towne, had a medical excuse to request a continued date for the rehearing and was turned down by the board. Therefore; Mr. Towne, has never had the required hearing pursuant to the judge's order.

6> The Planning Board at the direction of Margaret Sharra is a disgrace. Winchester does not want these exorborant legal fees. So the populace has to do something about it, specifically because the BOS who have the power to terminate an elected official refuse to do anything. The town would be best served if the Planning Board would start over on Van Dyke, get themselves a calm, professional chairperson, who would hear all sides, including the public, the abutters and the developer.

7> It is rare in America, that even in a small " insider" town; that any chairperson of a Planning Board take it's minutes. This is a clear conflict of interest. In addition, I might point out that at many meetings, there is Sharra's version, possibly a different version in the newspaper, and also a different version from Sharra's in the actual recorded transcripts of the meeting. I would again strongly advise, Margaret Sharra to recuse herself and completely stay out of the Van Dyke matter for the good of all involved. Her conduct is clearly unprofessional, not calm, and hurts all taxpayers of Winchester.

The Board of Selectmen do not want to get involved. However they have the right to hire and fire an elected person and also limit their functions.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

From The Desk of John Keenan

We received a request to post Mr. Keenan's open letter to the Board of Selectman and to the citizens of Winchester in it's entirety and without edits. Mr. Keenan is a citizen of Winchester and is concerned with a number of issues going on in town, especially the lawsuit against Margaret Sharra and the Planning Board ...

From the Desk of John Keenan :
re: Malfeasance, incompetence of Margaret Sharra, chairperson of the Planning Board. Sharra causes town $20,000 in legal fees and asks for a raise??

The following is uncontroverted;

1> Through Margaret's extreme rudeness and lack of fair play, (allowing people to be heard in a calm and professional manner) the Van Dyke legal bills ( billed and paid through October 26th, 2009) are: Van Dyke $2,480.00 and Towne/Homan $17,219.00. This alone totals $19, 699.00 so far. This type of unnecessary spending increases Winchester property taxes. Margaret is almost totally at fault for this extreme malfeasance.

2> Recently, a judge ordered Margaret to recuse herself from any hearing re:Towne ... Her previous seperate inquiry to DES disqualified her from participating in the boards discussion of Towne's motion for Reconsideration. Her improper involvement invalidated the board's previous decision ( see Judge Tucker's ruling August 28th, 2009 ).
She often improperly seeks to advocate for a developer like in this case, or, when after a Planning Board is over, the public, including abutters and their attorney, are told to leave and yet the developer, his engineers and attorney stay on chatting with the board after nearly every meeting. This is absurd and wrong and yet has happened time and time again.

3> One of her tactics to control the flow of information the board receives is to interrupt whomever she doesn't feel sees eye to eye with her, in this case, Mr. Towne who she has rudely interrupted several times and she has threatened to call the police, on at least two occasions, after she got into a " hissy fit".
Her position on this board requires professionalism and calmness and fairness. It may have saved the town $20,000.00 if she had remained calm, professional and allowed both sides to testify without censor. If she had done this, we would not have $20,000.00 in legal fees over this.

4> She should also not be allowed to be calling attorney Barton Mayer all the time, or so she says she does, to get his opinion and if she does, he should answer in an e-mail so that ALL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS have a copy and make an informed determination based on this information; not just relying on what Margaret interprets his meaning was. In addition, all planning board members should have access to all information and any weekly updates before the meeting ... Even Boy Scouts are prepared !!

5> The Planning Board has done very little correctly in the Van Dyke case from what I can see.
a.) There has never been a completed application submitted to the board by Van Dyke to this day.

b.) He needs and does not have a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, applied for in March of 2008. Margaret Sharra keeps insisting it will be issued any day every time this point is brought up.

c.) He needs and does not have State approval for his community water system or his septic design. In fact, though the public hearings are closed, according to the minutes, he still hasn't fully designed them yet !!

d.) The board has given him a final approval with conditions; though he has yet to meet the conditions of his conditional approval and has given him another year to do so.
How is this being fair to the abutters and other townsfolk ??

6> A Conflict of Interest: She works 32 hours in the Land Use Dept. as chair of the Planning Board, she presides over and takes the minutes of these meetings despite the board having an assigned secretary, she also was formally employed by Earl Beamon as a real estate agent. That is ridiculous and should not be allowed, the secretary must take the minutes !!

7> Recusal; Both her and Dean Beaman must recuse themselves when Beaman matters are heard, this is the law .. and yet at one meeting when Kathy Beaman approached the board for her"green elderly subdivision", Margaret remained sitting at the head of the table and under the guise of taking the minutes, directing the meeting indirectly by instructing the board and asking questions for them ... This is what she calls recusal?? She should have stepped down and possibly left the room, not remained seated on the board !

8> She should be sanctioned for her incompetent conduct in the amount of 1/2 the legal fees, $10,000.00 that the town has incurred due to her conduct. I suggest that $10,000.00 be divided among the police patrolmen in an attempt to keep them on our police force as they are the lowest paid in the area.

9> She is also the secretary; but not an appointed member of the ZBA ( or is she?? ) She should only be allowed to on one board and not a secretary on the other, too much conflict!
This is also true of Ken Cole, he sits on the ZBA and until recently also on the planning board where is still remains as an alternate. In any case, she should not be allowed to take the minutes for both boards and definitely not for the planning board.

10> The Planning Board has been referring to Carl Hagstrom as a he is Certified Soil Scientist, not! According to the State of New Hampshire, he is a Wetlands Specialist and according to what I read on the DES site, he does not have the authority to do wetland delineations on this Van Dyke project; yet when board member Jack Marsh brought this up before the board; it was stated that this information was irrelevant?? ( check the minutes of 10/05/2009 )

11> Due to Sharra's malfeasance in the Van Dyke matter, the case will now be heard in the State Supreme Court and because of the lack of response at the recent BOS meeting, there exists the possibility of a Contempt hearing in Keene at Superior Court.

In Conclusion:

The Planning Board at the direction of Margaret Sharra is bull headed and stupid. Winchester does not want these exorbitant legal fees. So Do something about it !!
In my opinion the town would be best served if the board would start over; get themselves a calm, professional chairperson, hear all sides ( abutters and developer )
The key to all this is: DO IT RIGHT!

You know, with someone besides Sharra taking the minutes we may not end up getting alternate versions of what happened at these meetings from the town's version, to the newspapers to the actual transcription of the recorded audio. Margaret's slanted untrue version has fraudulently slanted these minutes to make her look better after her unprofessional conduct -- see October 5th minutes page #6 and August 3rd minutes and the June 15th minutes in regards to the Kathy Beaman project.

Just Do it Right for everyone .....

State Supreme Court Accepts Case

We received word from the two neighbors still involved in fighting the Planning Board and the way the matter has been handled over the proposed condominium development on Franklin Mountain, that the State Supreme Court has accepted their case before them. They were notified by mail in a letter today, from the Clerk of Court, that case No. 2009-0713 has been accepted. We'll post further information as it becomes available from them.

Looks like the town will be spending a lot more of our tax dollars in the near future.

Board of Selectmen Petitioned to Remove Sharra

At tonight's Board of Selectman's meeting, Mr. Towne approached the board during the public session and requested that under RSA 673:13, Section II the board exercise it's authority and remove Margaret Sharra as chairperson and member of the Planning Board. Citing her animosity, malice and outright rudeness to him at both the June 15th and August 3rd meetings, where she acted in bad faith, rudely interrupting and yelling at him as he attempted to speak to the board and for allowing her personal feelings of dislike for him to cloud her judgment and move her to act in a very detrimental way involving not only the other members of the board; but resulting in the town being involved in a very expensive lawsuit as a result of her conduct. He stated her treatment of him and others was very wrong and that her actions demanded this situation be dealt with immediately if the Selectmen and the Planning Board were to have any credibility. He also reminded them of Judge Tucker's recent ruling and that under RSA 673:14, she had been disqualified from participating in discussions and that the Planning Board's denial of Mr Towne's request for a reconsideration be vacated and that the matter be re-heard. However on October 5th, she did just that by orchestrating the nonpublic session the board entered into before the scheduled meeting to grant Mr. Towne his ordered hearing and that by her interference, the board once again denied him the opportunity to participate, though they knew he was recovering from surgery and had received a letter from him requesting a continuance. Mr. Towne also informed the board that if they did not act upon his request to do the right thing, he would once again be forced to seek relief through the court and file a motion for contempt, which unfortunately will implicate all of the members of the Planning Board, something he does not want to do. Before Mr. Towne could finish speaking to the board, member Tedford, made a motion to close the public hearing and stated they should not be discussing anything with him due to the ongoing litigation. As Mr. Towne was turning from the microphone to take his seat, Chairman Ruth spoke out that Mr. Towne would do anything to stop the proposed condominium project before the board. What this board and the Planning Board fail to see is that if Mr. Towne had been afforded the same courtesy as any other abutter, had been notified when this project was first proposed as required by law, allowing him to participate in due process , had been allowed to present testimony before the board without being censored by Margaret Sharra and if the board had just followed it's own rules and regulations when dealing with this contractor, requiring him to be accountable to both the board and abutters as they have done with other applicants in the past; then perhaps there would have been no lawsuit and wasted tax payer dollars. Unfortunately; because of the lack of any response to his request and what appears to be the failure of this board to take any responsibility and act upon his request, the town once again may find itself back in court for failure to do the right thing.
It's your money they will continue to spend to defend the actions of a chairperson who is so obviously out of control she'll stop at nothing to get her way. Don't blame Mr. Towne for attempting to exercise his rights to be heard. Put the blame where it belongs.

Neighbors plan to appeal court's ruling

In the Tuesday edition of the Keene Sentinel, October 27th, a story ran about the lawsuit filed against the town Planning Board and it's chairperson Margaret Sharra. For those of you who may have missed it and aren't Sentinel subscribers we'll post it below. Unfortunately this story has many errors in it and we will provide corrections so that all may know the whole truth.

Two Winchester residents hope to take their case against the town ( actually the planning board ) to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The residents say they are unsatisfied with a recent ruling from Cheshire Superior Court regarding a decision by the planning board and the behavior of it's chairman, Margaret Sharra. ( The residents were appealing the decision to give Van Dyke a conditional approval and allowing him to disturb the 100' protected by town ordinance buffer zone and the fact that Margaret Sharra had ex-parte' communications outside of the meetings with various factors and that she influenced the board and it's decision by acting as an agent for Van Dyke and not remaining neutral ).

Superior Court Judge Brian T. Tucker ruled that the board's approval of Developer Robert Van Dyke's plans to build 32 condominiums was not "unreasonable or unlawful " as the abutters to the project had claimed.
The case ( 2009 - 0173 ) has been filed, but not yet accepted by the Supreme Court. The decision on whether to accept the case could be made by early next month according to a case manager with the Court.

Judge Tucker found ( ruled ) that Sharra should not have sought information about the application ( was not the application, but the written request to the board for reconsideration of their decision ) on her own from the N. H. Department of Environmental Services.
( actually judge Tucker ruled that no member of a planning board may participate in deciding or sit upon the hearing of any question which the Board is to decide in a judicial capacity if that member would be disqualified for any cause to act as a juror upon the trial of the same manner in any action of law. RSA 673:14, I ( 2008 supp. ) )

Sharra had asked the department for information to rebut claims made by Mr. Towne that mandatory buffers around wetlands would be violated among other offenses. Because she voted on the petition, the board should revisit Towne's request, ( actually it wasn't because she voted, she did not, it was because of the reasons stated above and her ex-parte' communications and in his ruling she was disqualified for her actions and the matter of reconsideration was remanded to the board for another hearing, " but without the DES information Sharra obtained independently" . The baord scheduled another hearing for Oct 5th, one which Towne could not attend because of health issues and though specifically told they could not use the prior info from Ms. Sharra did so anyways. ) Tucker wrote. But in hearing the reconsideration, the board could only discuss Towne's claims Van Dyke could be disturbing wetlands, Tucker said. ( untrue, Tucker ruled that if they had a hearing, they were to address all "the issues raised by Towne's motion". Something they once again did not do despite a court order. ).

Sharra could not be reached for comment.

Board member Kenneth A. Cole said the board discussed the issues at two meetings ( ? , only one meeting was scheduled for this discussion, October 5th. Did the board with Margaret Sharra in attendance have a private discussion ? This would be in violation of judge Tucker's order that she be disqualified from participating. ) this month and ruled again in favor of the developer.

Van Dyke originally presented plans for the condominium complex in November 2006 ( April of 2007 ) The planning board at the time postponed talking about the application until July 2007, after he got several variances. ( This information is also wrong. Mr Van Dyke approached the board in April of 2007, (1st meeting ); then came back in May( 2nd meeting ) and was sent to the Zoning Board because he was asking for hardship waivers on our Steep Slopes and Density ordinances. He came back to the board in July and his application was accepted as complete. )

First order of business: The Board reviews an application for site plan submitted by Robert Van Dyke of Rindge. The site is for a proposed 32 units condo Planned Residential Development ( PRD ). The property is located on Keene Road, map 15, lot 53, which is located behind Shamrock Real Estate.
M. Sharra updates the board on this application. She explains where the board left off in April, Mr. Van Dyke obtaining a variance for density requirements and the meetings with Natalie and the engineers report ( none of this was seen by several abutters as they had not received a notice from the planning board )
D. Beaman moves to accept the application ( though not complete ) as complete and move into a public hearing, K. Cole seconds, all in favor.

At this time Mr. Van Dyke still needs to apply to the State for septic approval, apply for alteration of terrain permit and storm water run off and a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH among other things. Mr. Van Dyke is also asking for two waivers. One waiver is for frontage on Route 10 in the highway commercial district ( required 500', his lot has 214' ) and the other one to permit septic systems in the 100ft. buffer area.

In September 2007 the board voted to deny the application. ( Based on the town's own Site Plan and PRD regulations and town Ordinances despite several protests from Margaret Sharra. ) The next month Sharra suggested the members reconsider, based on a Supreme Court's decision that boards could do so within a certain time frame ( Not for any points of law they may have missed or for being unfair to the developer as is required for reconsideration ) After 13 more hearings ( and many more he neither showed up for or requested a continuance of ) the application was approved in June 2008 ( wrong again, his conditional approval with 26 conditions was granted 4/21/2008, which anyone can verify by going here. )

http://winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_PlanningMinutes/I0205C811

Towne asked the board to reconsider that decision, a request that was denied, leading to the lawsuit. ( Mr. Towne was not even allowed to speak, to present his motion, or give testimony, or even call upon others in the audience to provide additional testimony in his support; thus he filed suit to be given a chance to exercise his rights at a public hearing . )

Cole, a long time planning board member, said he hoped the case would soon be closed. " I know the appealers are sincere, " he said. It's been a long process. I'm sure it's not been easy for them ... and it's been a very expensive process for the town.

This will not be over anytime soon. The board once again has ignored due process and Mr. Towne's rights and besides possibly having to defend itself before the State Supreme Court, a very costly endeavor for the town, they will shortly find themselves back in court facing Superior Court Judge Tucker and explaining why they violated his court order and didn't wait until their next scheduled meeting granting Towne time to heal from surgery and allowing him to give testimony and present his witnesses at his own scheduled hearing. And of course there could be another appeal of the final approval which has been granted with conditions in which he did not fulfill when given his conditional approval over a year ago.

We hear that the town has spent well over $20,000.00 of your tax dollars defending the planning board's actions. If they had just followed their own rules and made Van Dyke wait until he had everything that was required for a completed application as mandated by the town's own regulations and ordinances, as they have many others who have come before them, then perhaps the town would not find itself having to defend the actions of a few. At least we have something in common with Richmond.

Any and all info can be verified by the town's own official record of both audio and written minutes, court motions and the Judge's decision by contacting us if so desired.

RICHMOND: Town, Catholic center still at odds over plan

Split Decision In Case;

After years of debate inside town offices and courtrooms, a verdict has been reached on parts of the case between St. Benedict Center and the town of Richmond.

Each side scored a victory.

Cheshire County Superior Court Judge Philip P. Mangones ruled that Richmond violated the conservative Catholic center’s First Amendment rights, effectively restraining its freedom to practice religion. But Mangones also ruled that the 12 members of Richmond’s planning and zoning boards — named as defendants in the lawsuit and accused of religious discrimination — cannot be sued as individuals. Richmond’s planning and zoning boards themselves are still named in the lawsuit.

The case between Richmond town officials and St. Benedict Center, however, is far from over.
The lawsuit — made up of three consolidated cases — stems from the center’s proposal to build a 10,000-square-foot school and chapel on its Fay Martin Road property. Richmond’s zoning and planning boards approved the plan, but attached a list of 30 conditions the center had to complete to build. They include installing a generator and widening and paving a section of Fay Martin Road. Richmond officials say those conditions are neutral, matters of health and safety.
St. Benedict Center alleges the conditions were discriminatory, violations of its constitutional rights of freedom of religion, speech and assembly.

St. Benedict Center is asking for nearly $2 million in compensatory damages, which are payments for injury or loss. That amount includes the increase in construction costs and lost tuition. The center is also asking for anywhere from $3.8 million to $5.8 million in punitive damages, which are meant to serve as a punishment and example to others. Most of the lawsuit will be decided by jury trial, which, due to judge availability, isn’t scheduled until March 2010.
Either side can ask Mangones to reconsider parts of his order, which was handed down Friday.

Daniel J. Mullen, a Concord-based attorney representing Richmond, said he intends to ask for reconsideration on the two sections of the order where Mangones ruled in St. Benedict Center’s favor. In one, Mangones cited Richmond’s zoning regulations: Houses of worship are prohibited in three of the town’s four zoning districts, and only allowed in the fourth with a special exception. Without an exception, “no house of worship could be established within the town,” Mangones wrote. This equates to an “unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights.” Mangones also ruled that Richmond discriminated against the center by attaching unattainable deadlines to some of the conditions it had to meet to expand. Those time frames violated St. Benedict Center’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Mangones wrote.

The act is a federal statue that makes it illegal for land-use boards to discriminate against a religion through building policies.

Manchester attorney Michael J. Tierney, who is representing St. Benedict Center, declined comment on whether he would ask Mangones for reconsideration on the part of his order where Richmond prevailed. That section of the lawsuit was added in October 2008, after Tierney moved to join the 12 members of Richmond’s planning and zoning boards as individual defendants in the discrimination case.

In his order, Mangones ruled the board members had a “quasi-judicial capacity” when they ruled on St. Benedict Center’s proposed addition. Even if the 12 erred in their decision, they were still acting within their authority as land-use board members, Mangones wrote, thus qualifying for immunity from lawsuits against them as individuals.

This protection is important for board members, Mangones wrote, “to ensure that they can perform their function without fear of harassment and intimidation; without such assurance, the volunteer members of the boards would likely not want to serve.”

How much more do you want??? We can keep it coming....

Another example of Gary Phillips, purposely disregarding policies that he created.

This is an example of the chaos that Phillips enjoys creating. He has said so many times that a little controversy is good. Perhaps the logic behind that is simply, they won’t be able to look to closely at me it I confuse all the issues all the time.

Consistent to a "T", time and again Phillips throws his policies by the wayside to suit his own needs without regard to the leadership he is supposed to teach, teaching instead he has no knowledge of what leadership really is.

This police department, Policy # 44 was created Phillips and signed by all 5 of the selectmen and it clearly states:

C: Probation Period 2. Newly promoted members and employees shall be placed in probationary status, for a period of one year.

Policy #44, page III.44.2

Roberts started working for the WPD on March 21, 2008 as a master patrolmen, this after being FIRED from Hinsdale, after being DEMOTED in Hinsdale and after being STRIPPED of all supervisory duties while in Hinsdale .

Who did his background check and what did they find?

It’s been confirmed Warren Breau did Roberts background check, that Roberts had personnel issues in his background and problems with the public. Warren Breau was given limited information from Hinsdale.

Chief Gallagher and Lt. Faulkner both told Breau that Roberts had issues in Hinsdale and that he wasn’t working out there and he would work out better somewhere else. Breau informed Phillips of Roberts shortcomings, personnel problems and issues with the public and the amount of time he worked in Hinsdale and Phillips hired him anyway.

Six months later, on September 24, 2009, Roberts was promoted to Patrol Sergeant.

He didn’t get more money for this promotion, he had already been getting paid more than he should have been for the six months proceeding, against the TOWN’S POLICY of paying people more for a job they aren’t doing.

Or is their a new policy that allows the TOWN to indiscriminately pay new employees more that their job title and job description states they should be earning?

According to policy #44 Roberts was not eligible for another promotion until after September 24, 2009.

It looks like Phillips must have forgotten he had this policy or?

What was his motive for circumventing his own policy this time?

What was he trying to achieve? And for what reason? What did he hope to gain?

Was he unhappy with Dan Reppucci’s performance?

Dan Reppucci had been doing all the jobs associated with the Lieutenants position for almost a year and half and without any problems or additional compensation and at the same time he was performing the duties of the job he was being paid to do as the Detective Sergeant.

One would have to think that if he weren’t doing a good job or Phillips was unhappy with his performance that he would have stripped him of the responsibilities long ago.

But that didn’t happen. Why not?

Did Dan Reppucci do something that upset Chief Phillips?

Much of this would be understandable if Dan Reppucci were faltering, but there is no indication of that. In fact, he had just gotten another great yearly review from none other than Phillips himself and his personnel file was perfectly clean with no issues or problems contained within.

What experience did Roberts have as a supervisor in Winchester, let alone experience as a Lieutenant?

What experience did Roberts have in Winchester after being there for such a short time? His job function was doing nothing more than patrol officer duty. He hadn’t been given any of the Lieutenant position responsibilities? Why not?

Why did Phillips not pass to Roberts some of these duties if he was so confident in his capabilities?

If there were TWO qualified employees, why not have them share the load, instead of leaving all the responsibilities on one? It’s not logical and makes no sense.

Roberts rarely worked weekends and he wasn’t available to field problems and questions most of the time.

Was Roberts hiding from the people?

Roberts would not come in when needed if he was required to be there outside of his hours of duty. The person that always came in while not on duty was Dan Reppucci, this can be verified by logs and time cards and cell phone bills.

And what does Roberts being under investigation at the time of this oral board have to do with any of this?

He was accusing an officer of spreading rumors about him in the hopes the officer would get fired over it. It was found that Roberts behavior was the behavior that was looked upon as dishonorable, not the other way around.

The officer he was accusing of spreading rumors was Warren Breau.

Warren Breau had been doing his job without any problems up until the time Roberts was hired.

Why would suddenly Warren Breau be having problems and why did it seem that Nate Jette and Roberts together were behind these problems?

Maybe it has something to do with Warren Breau doing Roberts background check?

Warren Breau wanted to apply for the Lieutenants position but Phillips wouldn’t let him.

Why?

Why was Warren Breau not allowed to apply for this position when he submitted his letter of intent to apply?

Too much education? Too much experience? Too much knowledge of others in the dept?

Phillips would probably say because he wasn’t full time certified at the time he submitted his letter but Warren Breau would argue he was going to classes and would have been full time certified at the time of the Oral board.

If Phillips was interested in being fair since he bent the rules for Roberts, he should have bent the rules for Breau?

Or maybe he shouldn’t have bent the rules for anyone and he should have stuck to his policy.

Prior to the oral board and after the oral board Phillips has stated publicly that Roberts does not know how to deal with people, that he has problems dealing with people and that he doesn’t trust him. He also has stated Roberts needed Dan Reppucci’s expertise because he didn’t know how to do anything.

This looks pretty crooked and you have to wonder what Phillips motive is to go to such extents to protect Roberts who has such a questionable past and a past that Phillips was aware of.

There are some people in the community that have been led to believe and have said that Chris Roberts and Nate Jette were cleared in a probe by the state. If you read the AG's letter, nowhere in it does it say they were cleared of anything, only that there was insufficient evidence at the time to pursue criminal charges as quoted by the Attorney, not to say this can not be done at some time in the future.

People DO NOT take eveything at face value, ask questions and read between the lines. Unless the statements are absolute they are not always what they appear to be.

UPDATED WITH MUTUAL AID POLICY:

MULTIPLE POLICY VIOLATIONS?

ANOTHER CASE OF BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THE WINCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THOSE WE PAY TO SERVE AND PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY?

DO THEY WORK FOR US OR DO WE WORK FOR THEM?

More Deception from the WPD ???????????

Nate Jette is a certified firearms instructor and certifies people for a fee $175.00 if they need firearms certification. This is one of the side businesses he has. There are two parts to this certification. One part involves shooting a weapon and the other part is a minimum four hours of classroom training.

Both of these requirements must be met. After the two conditions are met Jette is responsible for filling out the appropriative state forms and then returning the completed forms to the State Police, Department of Safety.

Gene Park asked Jette to administer his yearly firearms proficiency testing for his certification in July of 2008. Gene Park paid Jette the $175.00 fee and Jette did do the firearms part of the training but he never did the 4 hour classroom training as required. Although the form states clearly the class was given at Gene Park’s home address and that the training was done that day as Jette checks off the box saying all requirements of RSA 106-F:8-a had been met, even though Gene Park maintains he never received the 4 hour training. The RSA can be read below.

Jette told Gene Park he was too busy that day to give him the 4 hour class, but that he would get together with him and do it at a later date.

After months of requesting the class and even requesting Gary Phillips assistance in having Jette give him the class it was not done.

As a matter of fact, Phillips said to Gene Park, he was doing this as a favor to you. Gene Park told Phillips, it was not a favor, he paid by check the $175.00 fee and he expected to get properly certified by having his 4 hour class.

The class was never given.

Gene Park was contacted by the AG”S office about this and since then the AG’s office has done nothing.

Chris Roberts, did an investigation into the matter and determined in contradiction to Gene Park’s version, that Jette did in fact give the 4 hour class, at the shooting range, in the field in back of Johnny’s Sales and Service on the Warwick Road.

Chris Roberts determined that 6 hours was spent in the field with no protection from the heat and sun and that during that time all parts of the certification were done including the 4 hour classroom training.

This can be verified by Paul McCoomb as he was part of Roberts investigation, not the AG’s investigation.

Which version do you believe?

A.) The version Gene Park has, where Jette took the money and ran, and filled out the paperwork to the state fraudulently?

OR

B.) The version Roberts has, that Jette and Gene Park stood in the hot sun in the middle of a field doing a 4 hour classroom training?

Is this another instance of theft with Nate Jette?

If he took someones money and didn't perform the service..................?


These are blank forms, downloaded because the forms that are filled out are difficult to read.


RSA 106



Gene Park's forms signed by Nate Jette.


This should have been provided above but was forgotten.

Originally when Roberts questioned Gene Park and according to Gene Park, Roberts told him the state had relaxed the laws and that he didn’t need the 4 hour class and showed him some paperwork to that effect.

So your Lieutenant doesn’t even know what the laws are as they pertain to firearms qualifications?

Or was he trying to cover for his good friend Jette?

Letter from the Police Associaton President and Treasurer to TD Bank

Following is the letter written to TD Bank after the takeover of the Winchester Police Association's bank account by Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts. The letter requests the account be returned to the proper and rightful status. However, because of the apparent undue influence exerted by the Chief and Lt. of the Winchester Police Department, TD Bank would not change the bank account. The bank froze the account until such a time as a review can be competed and the proper method of transfer take place.