Sunday, September 6, 2009

Keene Sentinel Article Off The Mark ..

In Saturday's edition of the Keene Sentinel, Sept. 5th, there was a front page article written by reporter Phillip Bantz on the 'Right to Know" law and how personnel records are protected from view under the law. I can only guess this was prompted by one of the subjects on this blog as I was contacted by him personally to give comment; however I was unable to at the time due to prior commitments. He mentions this blog in his article and quote
A citizen's blog called the "Winchester Informer" has set it's sites on the town's police chief, Gary A. Phillips and some of his officers.
He also states,
The blog, whose creator remains annonymous, accuses one officer of stealing a bicycle and another of threatening and insulting residents, for example.
Mr Bantz is in error there; nowhere on this blog will you find that I have accused anyone of anything, I have simply, at the request of a citizen, Brian Jordan, reprinted his letter to the State's Attorney General's Office and opened a subject for discussion. Mr. Jordan provided proof of the content of his letter, including a letter from the Richmond Police Department in answer to his complaint filed there, signed by Andrew M. Wood, Chief of Police. The article also alleges that we posted information in regards to officer Daniel Reppucci, who was placed on administrative leave a few weeks ago. I did not and I have no knowledge of what transpired or the outcome of a recent BOS meeting as the record was sealed. Comments from the public have been edited to remove personal attacks and I am not responsible for their content. Chief Phillip's responded;
"We're in a no-win situation. When we confront people that are saying things it gives them credibility." Basically I'm ignoring what's going on because it doesn't serve any purpose to get into a he-said, she-said with the people that are just throwing things into the wind."
So there you have it, Chief Phillips isn't interested in your comments or questions. So much for an open discussion. Perhaps that's why you all have been posting your comments on this blog; hoping to get answers you can't get at the police Dept. or Town Hall.

Now, as for the content of the original article in regards to the Citizen's Right To Know law, how is it that in Massachusetts, the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe were able to obtain copies of the citizen's complaints against Cambridge Police Sargent Crowley, the officer who arrested professor Gates recently that started all the bruhaha and ended with a chat at the White House?
The files were released in response to public records requests by The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Of the eight citizen complaints filed against Crowley during his 11 years on the force, two involved black males alleging racial bias, according to the records. He was cleared in all eight cases. ABC NEWS.COM
Are our laws so different here in New Hampshire that public officials can censor public information?
I have written back to Mr. Bantz and asked that he correct his recent article in regards to myself and my blog and await his reply.

In the meantime, we once again, welcome both sides to comment in an adult manner to comments and subjects posted on this blog and at all times to be respectful to each other.

30 comments:

glad for this blog said...

I think this Bantz owes you an apology and he should print a retarction for all to see in his paper. You have provided us with a much needed source of information on a number of subjects and your home page winchesterinformer.com is a god send with all of it's useful links and information. Keep up the good work and know that many of us appreciate your efforts and what you are doing and have or support.
thank you informer

Anonymous said...

As a teacher I teach my students to research an issue. The more information that they can find the better as they can make an informed decision. I want to take this opportunity to thank the "blog" for telling all sides of an issue and giving the citizens of Winchester the opportunity to make an informed decision about the activities
happening in this town.

Anonymous said...

I too think this blog provides a service to everyone, is informative and fair. I also read the article in the paper and thought the writer's comments were unfair to you Informer and I hope they realize they are mistaken.

Anonymous said...

Someone should write a letter to the editor then! Get the story straight!

Anonymous said...

TITLE XLVI
LOST PROPERTY; STRAYS
CHAPTER 471-C
CUSTODY AND ESCHEAT OF UNCLAIMED AND ABANDONED PROPERTY
Section 471-C:13
471-C:13 Property Held in Police Department Property Rooms. – Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, all noncontraband abandoned or lost personal property which has a value of $250 or more and which has been held in a police department property room for a period of at least 180 days, or which has a value of less than $250 and has been held for a period of at least 90 days, may be disposed of by the police department by returning it to the finder, if known, if the finder was other than a police officer who discovered the property during the course of the police officer's usual police duties. If the property cannot be returned to the finder, the property shall be sold at public auction with the proceeds to be turned over to the town or city treasurer. Except that any bicycle which has been held in a police department property room for a period of 90 days or more shall be sold at public auction with the proceeds to be used for the support of local bicycle safety programs, or, if no local bicycle safety programs are available, then with the consent of the local governing body, to be used for any other purpose. The police department shall be relieved of all liability for any claim thereafter arising or made with respect to property disposed of under this section. A good faith judgment of the value of the property by the police department shall be determinative for purposes of this section.
Source. 1986, 204:1. 1995, 84:5; 295:18. 2000, 237:2, eff. June 6, 2000. 2005, 48:1, eff. July 22, 2005.
Officer Nate Jette has openly admitted that he took a bicycle that the police department had in their possession. Officer Nate Jette was not the owner of the bike because he already said he took it. He did not buy it in an auction because there was no auction at least not one that myself and others were made aware of. He could not have turned it in and been able to get it because he is a Winchester Police Officer and Police Officers can’t have or keep property they find. So what do we have here? This is the law not some made up rumor. How do you explain this? I guess everyone needs to draw a conclusion on his or her own because I doubt we’ll get an explanation from the police chief or the selectmen.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous who posted info about Title XLVI. Could you also post this info on the What's going on with our police department blog section of the Winchester Informer. The citizens should find this information very interesting. Thank you.

the Winchester Informer said...

I guess in Winchester, it is okay for an officer to place himself above the law and act in a manner detrimental to the dept. with no fear of any repercussions or disciplinary action, otherwise why risk your job for a bicycle?. I wonder what other transgressions may have gone on that we as a community don't know about? If other officers and the Chief himself know of this, why hasn't the bike been returned to impound and officer Jette suspended for his conduct and just what does this say about the dept. as a whole?

Anonymous said...

I’m not even sure where to post this because there is so much going on but thanks for the information about the minutes on the towns website. I was browsing through them. What’s nice about the BOS minutes being posted you can at least get some idea of their integrity. Like the integrity the BOS has when they unanimously vote to accept a donation from the police association. I’m glad to know that when I make a donation to the police department it might very well deceptively be used for some other purpose than the purpose that was originally presented such as for equipment for the officers.

the Winchester Informer said...

We have received an e-mail from Mr. Bantz that the paper will be running a correction/clarification in the Wednesday's edition.

I also commented to Mr. Bantz that I believe,that under the statute, 91-A:5 Exemptions, section IV, to wit;
" nothing in this paragraph
shall prohibit a public body or agency from releasing information relative to health or safety from investigative files on a limited basis to persons whose health or safety may be affected."

that we, as citizen's of Winchester would have the right to view complaints against an officer for conduct unbecoming an officer as it could affect our safety and quite possibly someone's health if threatened with bodily harm. I would think threatening someone with a drawn firearm would constitute a safety and health issue, wouldn't you?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update.

What's up with being able to get a little info? said...

Why shouldn't the citizens be able to get copies of complaints. If all that is being asked for is a copy of a complaint that was made, complaints are public information, and not the outcome of the complaint then it shouldn't be an issue. There is a difference between asking for a copy of a complaint made against an officer or any other matter of the town government and asking for the disposition of that complaint. The complaint comes before any action after the fact, if there even is such an action after the fact, otherwise the complaint itself would be considered confidential?

the Winchester Informer said...

In case you missed it, the Keene Sentinel printed a "CLARIFICATION" on page 3 (bottom right) on the article they published in Saturday's edition; in which they state, "the point was not clear" as to who they accused of targeting Chief Phillips and the police dept. and of accusing an officer of stealing a bike and another of threatening the public. I thought their article was quite clear. I expected more from a newspaper that went out of it's way to point a finger and make false accusations; so much for fairness in reporting.

Chris said...

Gary Phillips response to Phil Bantz, Keene Sentinel on Sept. 6th, leaves one to wonder if the selectmen are in complete denial or just out on vacation some where. Their Chief of Police states and I will quote this “We’re in a no-win situation. When we confront people that are saying things, it gives them credibility.” “Basically I’m ignoring what’s going on because it doesn’t serve any purpose to get into some type of he-said, she-said with people that are just throwing things into the air.” NOBODY HAS BEEN ASKING FOR CONFRONTATION – what the good people want are answers. If what is being said and tossed about is not true then how about calling a town meeting and give the taxpayers and citizens a chance to ask questions and hear for themselves that this blog is nothing but lies. For the CHIEF OF POLICE TO SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE IS IGNORING WHAT’S GOING ON IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND ARROGANT ON HIS PART AND HE SHOULD RESIGN JUST BECAUSE OF THAT KIND OF DEMEANING ATTITUDE HE HAS FOR THE PEOPLE PAYING HIS SALARY. These same people would like some answers to legitimate questions about integrity and possible criminal activity and have so far gotten no response to what the truth is as Mr. Phillips acknowledges in the Sentinel. It’s not going away, not today, not tomorrow or not next year, not until the questions get answers. As to the selectmen and the town administrator reading about this in the Sentinel and ignoring what’s going on, one can only imagine what they all have to hide because people who are confident in their performance don’t ignore their public and instead invite the public in. When will that happen here? What else is going to be forced on us because it has been decided ignoring the problems will make them go away. What else is being hidden and how much is it going to cost?

Anonymous said...

Saw the very TINY retraction in the paper. Wow!

Hey, can you fill us in on why Van Dyke has equipment on the property?
Does he have all of his approvals?

FYI said...

The meeting is canceled for Tuesday and will be on Wednesday night at the secret place instead. If you are not sure where or when ask Brian, he'll be around.

the Winchester Informer said...

To the person asking why Van Dyke has equipment on the property on Route #10, I'd suggest you ask Ms. Sharra of the Planning Board. According to the minutes of their last meeting, August 3rd, Mr. Van Dyke was told he could not do any work until litigation was over .. it is NOT over and they know this. Mr. Van Dyke was ordered by the board to loam and seed the disturbed area by 09/01/09, to which he did not comply. No extension was granted to him by the board as there has been no meetings since the 8/3 meeting. The board continues to pander to him, take no action when he doesn't comply with with stipulations on his conditional final approval and the BOS is just as useless, not a backbone in the bunch. I guess they like spending taxpayer money to defend their inaction. Someone should ask them how much it has cost the taxpayers of Winchester in the recent litigation against the town for their pandering and preferential treatment of this applicant and just what's in it for them? How much more are they going to spend to help a man who snubs his nose at rules and regulation and conditions he is required to meet? Look at the mess out on Route 119 on your way to Richmond, another of his unfinished projects. Isn't that inviting scenery coming into town?

Anonymous said...

Go to the Media about Van Dyke.

Richmond Contractor said...

I've been a contractor for many years in Richmond and using an excavator to spread loam is either just plain foolishness or he's planning to do more than just loam and seed. I see he has a cat and loader on site too, evidently he has money to burn using that much heavy equipment to perform that little bit of work. I smell a very large rat looking to do more than just seed.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't this reporter do some investigating and print something about this town? Surely we've given him enough facts to start looking into some of this mess. What say you Mr. Bantz, heard enough to peak your interest, ready to report on some real news?

Anonymous said...

Go to the media about all the problems in this Town - they are multiplying like weeds on a summer day after the rains.

Anonymous said...

To all bloggers who want information and action. Organize a gathering of the people. The demand for,accountability and justice ara at all time high. To the people of Winchester, Strike while the iron is hot and leave your mark.

Unknown said...

How come Sherman Tedford let Gary Phillips talk him into going against the voters who said NO to a new cruiser and let him spend $10,000 plus an extra $2,000 for a new cruiser the department didn't need? Not only did Tedford go against the voters he made a motion to spend $2,000 more of our money for no reason.Is this an attempt to cover up something from Tedford's past that Phillips knows about? How does Phillips have so much control over Tedford? To do such an about face and in light of everything that is coming out you have to wonder what the motivation to go against the taxpayers was.This is exactly why this information needs to be discussed. If they needed a new car why didn't they use the chief's car-he doesn't put hardly any miles on it and then they could get a 4 wheel drive vehicle that we are going to need? The Expedition is falling apart, rusting out and couldn't pass inspection this year without major repairs. Ask for a copy of the repair bills at the town hall.Maybe Tedford and Fraser can get together and make sure the important decisions are made the way we ask them to be.Oh that's right it would be a conflict of their interst and Sherm would have to take it under advisement.

Anonymous said...

In reponse to "None Said" an accounting proverb, "figures can lie and liars can figure".

Anonymous said...

MINUTES of the
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday
May 11, 2009
WORK SESSION

4th Order of Business: Other Business

Chief Phillips is asking the Board to transfer $2,896.00 into the 2009-2010 police budget. The department will not qualify for potential Federal grant funding for the next three years and the current police budget must reflect an increase over the two previous years. The Budget Committee approved $431,627.00 for the fiscal year 2009-2010. The Police Department needs to reflect a budget increase of $2,896.00, so Chief suggests putting a legal expense on the contracted services lines, 01-4210-5-110. Selectman Tedford does not believe the Board can authorize a transfer until the budget takes effect for 2009-2010 (July 1, 2009). Selectmen Berthiaume and Chairman Ruth suggest asking the LGC if the Board has the authority to show an increase, and especially when it’s not the same budgeting period. Selectman Fraser would like to see the documentation which references the Police Department needs to show an annual increase in order to receive homeland security federal grant money. Selectman Tedford believes he’s seen that before, where a department needs to show an increase to be eligible to receive grant money, along the lines "if you keep spending, we’ll keep giving", but he would also like to see that documentation. Bob Gray will speak with Chief Phillips about this proposed budget adjustment.

So now Gary Phillips is asking to move our numbers around so we can mislead the Federal Government into thinking we spend more than we really do?

WHY did Mr. Phillips suggest augmenting the budget for legal expenses.

Was he planning on defending this action or does he need the money to defend against other activity he's being looked at for?

This is blatant and I'm sure the Federal Government never told anyone to fudge their books.

If this doesn't show how Mr. Phillips goes out of his way to circumvent the rules and laws to suit his own needs and has a corrupt way of thinking I doubt anything will.

Apparently he went to the school of Laws and Rules Were Meant To Be Broken By The Elite and All Powerful.

I also wonder if he would have even gone to the selectmen if he could have done this without them knowing about it.

It's my understanding that Chris Roberts writes the grants so there you have folks the pea and the pod.

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely, unequivocally correct. Roberts does the grant writing. Ask him how much time he spends on writing on grants. You will be surprised.

Anonymous said...

MINUTES of the
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Wednesday
June 3, 2009

Chairman Ruth reads two excerpts from the Police Department’s May 2009 Activity Report, which include part-time Desk Officer Erin Gusan, and former Police Officer James Fisher donated six hours of cleaning, which included waxing three floors, cleaned and changed the light bulbs on all the light fixtures and cleaned the edging of the lobby area in the Emergency Services building; and Sergeant Chris Roberts and Emergency Management Director Herb Stephens donated several hours of their own time painting, constructing and sanding new downstairs conference room wall, along with construction of the wall to enhance efficiency and security for both departments. Selectman Tedford says thank you on behalf of the Board.

This was posted as part of the BOS meeting of June 3, 2009.

In reviewing past meeting minutes I do not recall seeing any mention of any other members of the police department or other departments being thanked for the contributions they made to help improve the towns Emergency Services Building.

Beginning around 2005/2006 some major changes and improvements began happening at the emergency services building.

4 new doors were put in, including an access door to the bathroom so that it could be accessed from the lobby area of building. Electrical wiring was done, 2 new walls were put in, the booking room was separated from the patrol area for Officer safety purposes, walls separating the rooms did not reach the ceilings affording no privacy and were fixed so that the wall reached the ceiling, floors and carpeting were installed, the entire police department was painted.

Almost all work was done on the personal time of the officer either before a shift, after a shift or on a day off.

Warren Breau is the one who started this project. He began by painting a wall here and a ceiling there. He enlisted the help of other officers..

Royce Pelkey – helped with the mudding of the new wall – 2007.

Brian Moser – fixed the walls separating the rooms so they reached the ceiling, put the new door in for access to the bathroom from the lobby – he donated many days of his time. Completed 2005/2006.

Warren – painted, mudded, got lumber from Lowes (where he worked part time) for a discounted amount because of some lumber that he knew they were getting rid of for cheap, donating many hours and days of his time – ongoing from 2005/2006 – 2009.

Brian Jordan – spent a day helping Dan Reppucci put the wall up that separates the booking room from the patrol room – 2007.

Dan Reppucci – helped put the wall up that separates the booking room from the patrol room, helped do mudding on the wall, built wall and put door in booking room, various carpentry work – Completed 2007-2008.

Helped do mudding on new wall, carpentry work, installing booking bench – Completed 2009.

Eric Ammann – helped scrape floors of old tile so new tile could be installed. Completed 2009.

Dan and Warren for the most part, with some assistance from Gary Phillips, were the ones who prepared the rooms for painting and improvements by moving files, furniture, in the offices and front office areas and then returning these items back in place.

Just to let the public know, these are some of the people who worked very hard and gave up many, many hours and days of their own time to help improve officer safety, help improve working areas and help improve pride. None ever did so to get recognized, but I think it only fair and appropriate to recognize all if you are going to recognize a few.

Anonymous said...

It is good to see someone who believes in the whole picture not a partial one. Give credit where credit is due!!! To set record straight Nate Jette did not lift a finger to help with any of the improvements.

Anonymous said...

It certainly does help to have a different perspective on things. It's nice to see that walls were put up, but it is equally nice to see the walls come down and get a peak into the behind the scenes business that is never shared. It's helps to see things in a different light and to think that perhaps all of what is on this blog is not untrue and some would like us to believe.

It’s Your Right – It’s the Law… said...

Rumor Has It a Few Don’t Like this Website and are Unhappy with it’s content. This website has been in existence for years and is unpopular with those that disagree when an opinion is posted which does not agree with their opinion. To that we say THANK GOD WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Let no one misunderstand that the NH State Constitution and US Constitution afford us the right to FREE SPEECH and any prohibition of that right is a violation of our 1st Amendment RIGHTS and our RIGHTS under Art. 22 of the State Constitution. Any violation of rights needs to be reported to the ACLU and elected state officials. [

State Constitution - Bill of Rights
Established October 31, 1783 Effective June 2, 1784 As Subsequently Amended and in Force January 2007

Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1968 to include free speech.


U.S. Constitition. (September 17, 1787) art. I-VII Published: Sep. 17, 1787

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If your rights are being violated here are some suggestions

Step 1
Understand the limits of the first amendment. The first amendment protects the rights of free speech. Individuals have the right to express unpopular opinions and speak out without facing censorship in most cases.

Step 2
Engage in protected activity. For your speech to be protected you have to be engaged in an activity that is protected under free speech rights. Actions include speaking out against corporations, government and protesting their activities.

Step 3
Notice a violation of your free speech rights. This may come in the case of a lawsuit against you, censorship of what you can say or being fired from your job.

Step 4
Contact legal representation. Protect your right to free speech by gaining assistance from a lawyer. Discuss the violations with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Step 5
Seek public support. Write to editors of local newspapers to discuss your situation. Attempt to speak to news stations to reach a wider audience, set up a website and discuss your free speech violations in public forums.

Step 6
Influence policy makers. Contact local elected officials and members of congress to report violations of your first amendment rights. Change the future of how free speech is protected by voting for the candidates who support your belief.

FYI said...

Just thought everyone would like to know. Winchester is famous. The Winchester Informer is on the internet. If you do a Google name search using the names mentioned in the blog( Margaret Sharra, Gary Phillips, Chris Roberts , Nate Jette,Dean Beaman Warren, Breau, Dan Reppucci, Paul Mccoomb) at Google.com you will see the Winchester Informer and the related articles.