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.

AG's Office State Probe in Keene Sentinel Article Misleading -

Brian Jordan wanted to share with us a copy of the letter he got from the Attorney General’s Office. He thought people should see what the AG's office had to say in response to his complaints about Nate Jette and Chris Roberts.

The letter does not state as the Keene Sentinel wrote in their newspaper article last week that either of them were cleared of anything in any kind of “state probe”.

All the letter says is that based on the information provided there wasn’t enough evidence to start a criminal investigation.

It’s possible that if the AG’s office were to get other information or they were to question those with direct knowledge for instance, they may have a different determination.

So you really have to search out the truth because there seems to be a bigger fight to keep the truth hidden than some people ever could have imagined.

There must be a “walk in closet” full of skeletons in this town. Guess we'll have to try to shake them out.

Happy Halloween !!!!!!

More Sobering Information about the WPD "And The Band Played On" as the Titanic Continued To Sink.....

• Many people have been duped by Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts.
• Many people have been implicated in wrongdoing by Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts.
• Gary Phillips, with the help of Chris Roberts, together set out on a path in an attempt to destroy the careers of at least TWO police officers in Cheshire County, Dan Reppucci and Warren Breau.
  
  Gary Phillips has a history of eliminating those that know the rules are being broken, at the same he rewards those who know that the rules are being violated and who do make waves about it. He does this by looking away and doing nothing.

Chief Phillips - we have a couple of questions to ask, as you have left us somewhat confused......If you left Jaffrey PD for personal reasons and of your own free will, as you state in this article, why then did you need an attorney, as you state in this article? Also, why did you just quit your job, as you state in this article, without having another job lined up, as you state in this article? Did you really leave of your own free will or is there somthing you haven't told us yet?

More Evidience of Gary Phillips managment style.

Here are questions that have been asked of Gary Phillips by the AG’s office.








These logs are just a couple of logs provided to the Winchester Informer that are from the WPD.

Without looking at anything else on the first log turned in by Chief Phillips, he states “To Keene Prosecutors Office” – how did he do that when he only put 12 miles on the cruiser during his shift that day? It’s not possible for this log to be accurate. Something on this log is not true. What part Chief Phillips is not accurate?

Sloppy record keeping or something to hide?

We have checked the logs prior to and after the time stated on Gary Phillips log and they do substantiate the mileage that Gary Phillips shows he drove this vehicle is accurate.

So again Chief Phillips how is that possible?

The second log filled out by Officer Meecham, who was being FTO’d by Nate Jette, who was responsible for his training at that time, turned in a log that did not have any ending mileage and no total miles filled out.

Is this the proper training of a new police officer by his Field Training Officer?

Shouldn’t a new officer be trained to fill out his paperwork completely and accurately?

Shouldn't the Chief or Lt. expect paperwork be filled out completely and properly or are the taxpayers asking for too much?

And what is the NEW Lieutenant, Chris Roberts, for all his new found wealth and glory doing for his paycheck?

How does Chris Roberts let this kind of sloppy workmanship go unattended? How does Chris Roberts, whose primary role is oversight of the patrol officers, not see this as a problem?

Why does Chris Roberts cover up mistakes rather than correct the problem? Oh, he does act like Gary Phillips doesn’t he?

How did Chris Roberts let these logs go out to the public without any scrutiny for accuracy?

WHY WERE YOU DEMOTED IN HINSDALE CHRIS ROBERTS? WHY WERE YOU FIRED?

What else in this department is untrue, inaccurate, undocumented or unmentioned?

How much evidence has been mishandled? How much evidence has not been handled properly? How much paperwork has been fraudulently submitted under this regime?

There are serious INTEGRITY issues here and they have become blatantly obvious and they are substantiated. These are not isolated incidences but patterns of behavior.

Did Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts Misuse their Power to gain control of the bank account belonging to the WPA ???

Getting Back To The Association – In the capacity of Chief of Police for the Town of Winchester, Gary Phillips requested that Dan Reppucci, the legal Treasurer of the Winchester Police Association, sign some financial paperwork and a check in the amount of $225.00, that needed to be submitted to the Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Unit. This request was made on Tuesday July 28, 2009. He had previously tried to have Warren Breau come and sign the financial paperwork, which Warren agreed to do but had to reschedule and ultimately was by passed by Chief Phillips and Chris Roberts in their scheme to gain control of the WPA bank account.

Dan Reppucci refused to sign the check or the financial form until he had an opportunity to review the paperwork and make sure it was completed properly and told Chief Phillips he would take it home and review it.

Chief Phillips refused and would not allow him to take it home and insisted everything was filled out correctly and all that was needed was his signature.

This was 3 weeks after Chief Phillips put Det. Sgt. Reppucci on administrative leave. Chief Phillips accusing him of stealing a grievance letter that he hand delivered to the Chief, by breaking into his office (he’s had a key for some 5 years) removing the grievance letter from a sealed envelope, showing members of the public and then returning the letter back to Chief Phillips office.

There was no reason for Dan Reppucci to accept Chief Phillips word on anything at that point since he denies the charges against him and feels that Chief Phillips has no integrity and he didn’t trust him to do anything properly.

Dan Reppucci told him that he would sign the stuff when he was given the time necessary to review it and not before. Chief Phillips was clearly agitated that Dan Reppucci would not comply with his request and stated that all paperwork was in order while blurting out that he had to go to the bank and request years of bank statements in order to fill out the paperwork. Chief Phillips at that same time got challenged when asked if he would just sign a check and tax return without looking at and he turned waved his hand that was holding the papers above his shoulder in a frustrated manner and said don’t worry I’ll take care of it myself.

That raised a question in Dan Reppucci’s mind – HOW COULD CHIEF PHILLIPS BE AUTHORIZED TO ACCESS AN ACCOUNT THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE ACCESS TO ????? – THE ONLY TWO AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES ON THE ACCOUNT WERE DAN REPPUCCI AND THERESA SEPE.

Dan proceeded directly to TD Bank in Winchester and spent the next half hour or so trying to find out how someone from the association could access that account when they have no authority and in this case someone who was not even an Officer of the association.

Although the representative of TD Bank could not tell Dan how such a mistake could have been made, she assured him that it was an error that nobody should have been able to access that account other than himself and Thersa Sepe, whose name was still on the account. This confirmed Dan’s other question which was did anyone remove his name from the account? He was told that the account was in the names of himself and Theresa and those are the only two people with access to the account and only they can make changes to it. He received a document from TD Bank that showed both himself and Theresa as the legal signers of the account.

Dan and Warren Breau had decided that they needed to contact Theresa Sepe, inform her that her name was still on the account, make available to her the documents that were in their possession for her review, have her name removed and have the current President, Warren Breau added as a signer.

Dan put the representative of the bank on notice that he did not trust that Gary Phillips would not use his title of Chief in an attempt to gain access to information he did not legally have the authority to have.

After leaving the bank Dan called Theresa Sepe and left her a message to call him. When he did not hear from her by the next day he called and left another message.

In the mean time on July 29, 2009, Dan tried to get in touch with Maryan Platz, the WPA Secretary regarding information about the association through an email. Dan went to TD Bank to have Theresa’s name removed from the account as planned. Theresa called Dan when he had just arrived at the bank and he explained what he was doing regarding the Police Association. All of these phone calls can be verified by cell phone records.

As Dan Reppucci pulled into the bank parking lot that afternoon so did Chief Phillips. Chief Phillips went into the bank before Dan Reppucci and he in fact didn’t see Dan there. Dan waited for the Chief to come out and after about 15 minutes of waiting Dan went into the bank. Both representatives were busy helping customers behind closed doors; one of those being helped behind closed doors was Chief Phillips. Chief Phillips realized Dan was there when he glanced out the glass door and appeared very nervous and kept looking over towards Dan. Dan waited another 10 to 15 minutes before the representative not helping Chief Phillips became available. It was the same representative as who helped the day before. She took Theresa Sepe’s name off the account, they discussed the need to protect the account, and that Warren Breau would be in the following day to sign the signature card. After about 15 minutes the banking was done and as Dan was leaving he noticed that Chief Phillips was still there behind closed doors.

Dan ended up running into someone in the parking lot and chatting, Chief Phillips left. He had been at the bank for almost an hour, it was now approximately 2:45. Shortly after Chief Phillips left Chris Roberts went into the bank and a few minutes later he walked back out. Dan never received any phone calls or emails from Maryan and decided to get in touch with Warren.

That night after discussion with Warren Breau, Dan and Warren decided to send a letter to the selectmen and Bob Gray via email explaining that the donation of the table by the association was not done in accordance with the WPA by-laws. They also explained that due to the seriousness of Chris Roberts actions and the fact that nobody was responding to the questions they were asking that they concluded that the AG’s office would need to be contacted.

The following day, July 30, 2009, it was decided that it would be more prudent to go to the AG’s office in person rather than send everything in the mail.

In preparation for going to the AG’s office, Dan Reppucci attempted to download some banking information online and was unable to access the account. He immediately called the bank and after some confusion was told the account he was trying to access had been closed. He was told that Chief Phillips and Chris Roberts submitted a letter informing the bank that there had been changes with the elected officers and that a vote was taken appointing Chief Gary Phillips as the acting treasurer. This made Chief Phillips a signer on the account and Chris Roberts a signer. After many phone calls with TD Banks legal and security departments and Dan’s insistence that what was done was illegal and against the by-laws of the association the bank conceded that the paperwork provided by Chris Roberts and Chief Phillips did not in fact give the bank any authority to close the bank account. TD Bank closed the bank account opened by Chief Phillips and Chris Roberts and reopened the original bank account closed because of the fraudulent letter Chris Roberts submitted to the bank. This was enough to convince the bank to re-open the original account that authorized Dan Reppucci as the signer.

Dan proceeded to the AG’s office. When he got there he found out that Chief Phillips had been there earlier that morning and dropped off the financial forms and also paid the filing fee of $225.00 in cash. Why would that be? This is very unusual especially when it involves a business transaction. Could it be that on his way up the Secretary Maryan, or maybe it was Chris Roberts called Chief Phillips and told him not to use a check as the account had been closed because the paperwork provided was illegal and the bank had to put the account back into Dan Reppucci’s name? The bank put the account back in Dan Reppucci’s name so as to be in compliance with the by-laws of the association.

As Dan is telling his story to Christine Gaunt, Investigative Paralegal at the AG’s, he gets a phone call from TD Bank informing him that the bank has received more paperwork from Chief Phillips and Chris Roberts and this time it is the appropriate paperwork to close out the account and remove him from having access. At this point the investigator moves Dan Reppucci into an interview room and an investigator by the name of Terry Knowles joins them. Dan proceeds to tell his story.

The following letters were received by the AG’s office and show to what extent Chief Phillips and Chris Roberts went through to deceive not only the bank but also the members of the police association and the Police Officers of the Town of Winchester.

Going against the by-laws, Chris Roberts and Gary Phillips concocted a story first on July 29, 2009 that informed the bank in a bold-faced lie that due to recent changes with elected officers of the WPA no one was available to sign checks and Chief Phillips was appointed the acting treasurer.

The alleged officers not available were Dan Reppucci and Warren Breau, make no mistake were both active officers of this association and still are and this is in fact confirmed by the AG’s office.

1.) Abuse of power – this is a Non-Profit Organization and as such, police titles are not used. There are NO positions of Chief in the association and therefore the letter reeks of intimidation made by a false sense of authority.

2.) When it was found out that the scheme they attempted to use for deception at the bank didn’t work the first time, they tried it again, this time in a different way.

3.) Now in another bold faced lie in an attempt at deception Chris Roberts creates a MEMO and about how the association doesn’t have anyone to sign checks because of personnel issues. Then he asks that the members sign off at their convenience on the two questions posed on his memo.

4.) The by-laws clearly state no officers are voted for except for at a meeting and by a secret ballot, which only the President in this case Warren Breau, is only person authorized to call a meeting and not done on a clipboard at the front window, which is how it was done to obtain signatures. Again violating the association are the titles next to everyone’s name. This was a clear violation of the by-laws of the association and was done surreptitiously.

5.) A little intimidation might be that the two head honchos are at the top of the list and the rest are called and told they need to stop by and answer the questions. What a coincidence that everyone voted unanimously.

6.) Worse yet was when Maryan Platz certified that all the deception was true.

7.) In accordance to the by-laws, in order to become a member of the WPA you have to be off probation. Officer Meacham (less than 90 days employed), Officer Fisher (less than 30 days employed), Officer Ziegler(less than 30 days employed) and Officer Smith (less than 1 year employed) were not authorized to give their signatures let alone cast a secret ballot, which is required in accordance to the by-laws and was not done in this particular situation. This another violation of the by-laws orchestrated by Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts. On it’s face the signature shows 11 members agreeing to the changes but in reality if you remove the 4 officers noted you only have 7. Victor Malavet, Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci were not notified and this clearly shows another blatant violation of the by-laws.

As Chris Roberts and Gary Phillips know, the Police Association and the Police Department have nothing to do with each other. In fact, both Dan Reppucci and Warren Breau were both still very much members of the association and until the President, Warren Breau, holds a meeting, no voting could take place to vote anyone in or out of office.

At the present time the WPA has been advised that any and all WPA meetings were to cease until the AG’s office completed their review

I’m not sure what kind of associations Chris Roberts and Gary Phillips were used to being in, but I can tell you from reading the by-laws of this association they violated many of them in their attempt to push people out of their way.

Gary Phillips himself has bragged that he wrote these by-laws while in Jaffrey and how these by-laws are still used by the Jaffrey Police Association today.

Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts actions show their clear and calculated intention to falsely represent themselves as officers of the WPA granting them authorization to access the WPA bank account. This was an act of deception and done to intentionally deceive.

The paperwork they presented to the bank was meant to deceive and allowed them to fraudulently close a bank account with someone else’s name on it.

Dan and Warren were able to get the following information from the AG’s office through a RTK request.

Presently, TD Bank has put a hold on both accounts pending the outcome of the AG’s office findings.

The mere fact the TD Bank closed both accounts is evidence enough that Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts actions were dishonest.

What Chris Roberts and Gary Phillips did was no different than a family member, friend or stranger going to the bank with a coyly written letter with the intent to influence , coerce, dupe or trick a bank official into falsely closing one account and falsely opening another account.

Their EGOS got the better of them.

Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts egoistical, narcissistic, self serving personalities will get the best of the them and may very well cost this town several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, punitive and compensatory damages.

If the members of the WPA were clearly informed of the situation, would they have voted the way they did? I should think not. Would Officers Meecham, Fisher, Ziegler and Smith have voted had they been made aware they were not eligible to vote? If the officers had any integrity, the answer is obvious NO they would not have.

The couple of disgruntled employees that Gary Phillips and Chris Roberts were talking about haven't been around for months - why is it there seems to be more problems now than ever before?

You can click on the pictures to make them larger.

Signs ..Signs .. Everywhere a Sign

We've been receiving reports that in support of our efforts to bring you the facts, someone or perhaps it is several someones, have been putting up signs around town to send a message that we, the citizen's of Winchester are drawing a line in the sand .. enough is enough! We applaud these efforts and hope others too will let the town know just how they feel.

More Policies Not Being Followed

We were able to locate the Policies that relate to Off-Duty and Detail Work for the Winchester Police Department.

The policies are clear – No Police Related Off Duty Employment outside the Town Limits unless the Officer is working in conjunction with another jurisdiction AND is a Duly Sworn Officer of that Jurisdiction. In other words in order for an Officer to work in another town they would have to be sworn in by that particular department. Therefore, in accordance to Chief Phillips policy this is a clear violation and the biggest violator of this policy is the one who has done the most details none other than Chief Phillips himself, violating his own policy by making 10’s of 1,000’s of $$$. Which by the way this policy was approved and signed off on December 17, 2008 by the Board of Selectmen.

You can rest assured that none of the Winchester Police Officers are duly sworn officers of Swanzey, Keene or any other police department in Cheshire County.

According to his policy no town car or uniform is to be used outside of the Town of Winchester limits other than official business, not off duty work.

A written request by way of a completed form must be filled out and maintained in the personnel file of any Officer working a detail. You can be rest assured you will not find this form in any of the officers personnel files, again another violation of department policies.

Which by the way is exactly the reason why Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci quit working off-duty details.

Officer’s not having completed a 1-year probation are not eligible to participate in Off-Duty employment. For instance, Officer Smith and Officer Meacham would not be able to participate in Off-Duty employment as they are on probation.

Again, as has been stated all too many times the Policies of this department are not being followed. There are serious flaws in the system and abuses abound because of it.

Maybe Gary Phillips should be investigated and found to be not in compliance of his own policy for every time he did a detail.

Are Police Officers Allowed To Have Property From A Property Room???

The Following Two Documents are Related to Property and the Proper Disposal of that Property by the Police Department.

RSA 471- C:13 Property Held in Police Department Property Rooms – Spells out the New Hampshire State Law Involving Property in the Police Department’s Possession and How They Can Legally Dispose of the Property. Specific Procedure for disposal of Bicycle’s is cited in this RSA.

Release of Property and Evidence from the Winchester Police Department Policy Manual.

Numbers 6 & 7 from above.

6. The Winchester Police may auction off unclaimed property to the highest bidder, provided that all State Laws regulating said auction are complied with.

7. No officer shall keep lost, found, abandoned, evidentiary or confiscated property in his vehicle, desk, locker or home at any time, unless directed by the Chief of Police.

Neither of these allow for a Police Officer to have possession of property for any reason unless directed by the Chief of Police. So how it is that Nate Jette admits he has a bicycle from the Winchester Police Property room and nothing is done about it?

Does this not create a problem with judging his Integrity? Nate Jette openly and publicly admitted to taking a bicycle home for his one of his kids.

Nate Jette admitted to taking a bicycle during the first phase of the hiring process with New Ipswich.

Nate Jette also admitted to taking windshield wiper fluid and copy paper from the Winchester Police Department when he went to the second phase of the hiring process. He had forgotten to mention that the first time.

Nate Jette failed to get into the New Ipswich Police Department because he did not answer questions truthfully and was told that he had too many integrity issues for them to hire him.

Maybe NH Police Standards and Training should contact New Ipswich to investigate this.

But here you have it, another instance of integrity issues at the Winchester Police Department.

Hopefully Nate Jette will never have to investigate any serious crimes and hopefully he will never have to testify in court as his lack of integrity and inability to use proper judgment are all to obvious.

N&M Properties (aka Triple T Trucking) Go Away and Don't Come Back Another Day!

We received the following letter and were given permission to post the authors name.

To The Sentinel:

Why are some Winchester public officials so eager to have N&M Properties (aka Triple T Trucking) build their “composting facility” in our town? Is it the few, low paying, dead-end jobs that Triple T would offer? Is it the anticipation of the town getting the $5,314.00 mitigation money? Sorry, but that money goes into the Aquatic Resource Mitigation Fund. Could it be the tax revenues that would be generated? Any revenues generated would be negated by the “anything goes in Winchester” message being sent to prospective businesses that the town is hoping to attract. Also, one must not forget the environmental and economic impact “composting” would have on the area surrounding the proposed site.

The voters in March of 2009 soundly rejected Warrant Articles 35 and 40 thereby strengthening our zoning laws in not allowing a composting facility like that proposed by Triple T anywhere in the town of Winchester. No means “No” and the wishes of the majority of the voters must be honored and respected, no matter personal desires or opinions of the few.

Now there are those who would say that since Triple T has already spent all this money on buying the property in question, having site plans drawn up, and hiring waste management consultants to work on their project that we should let Triple T go ahead with the project. I’m sorry, but anticipatory spending on Triple T’s part is not a valid reason for letting them come into town. Monies spent by Triple T was at their own risk and does not, and certainly must not, generate a sympathy vote by anyone.

I trust that individuals looking forward to letting Triple T coming into Winchester with their composting facility realize that it will not be just Triple T that comes into town, but that it opens the door to anyone else who would like to operate a similar business in Winchester, thereby making Winchester the composting dumping ground for the Tri State area. Is that what you really want for Winchester?

For those of you who are contemplating Triple T’s composting facility in Winchester I urge you to turn your attention to Winchester’s Master Plan and honestly ask yourselves the following questions:

1. Is this the most appropriate use of the land when considering the future development of our community and consistent with the Master Plan?

2. Is this project consistent with the Vision as defined in the Master Plan?

3. Does this project support Town Goals as defined in the Master Plan?

If you really have the best interest of Winchester at heart, your answers to the above questions will be a resounding NO.

Arthur Charland

68 Kapper Dr

Winchester, NH 03470

Planning Board In Violation Of Judge's Order

In his ruling in regards to the suit filed against the town's planning board, Superior Court judge Brian Tucker ruled that because planning board chair Margaret Sharra had ex-parte communications with DES, in regards to a request to reconsidered their decision to over turn their denial of Robert Van Dyke's condominium complex on Route 10, filed by abutter F. Towne, her involvement in an earlier decision to deny Mr. Towne's request was vacated and ordered the board to have another hearing without Ms. Sharra because she was disqualified. One of the reason's stated for his ruling was that the board did not allow Mr. Towne the opportunity to respond to the board or to present his request.

The board voted to rehear Mr. Towne's request for reconsideration tonight, Oct. 5th at 6:00pm, however because of recent surgery and because of existing medical conditions and narcotic medication that was affecting his ability to be able to participate in tonight's meeting, Mr. Towne called the Land Use Office this morning and conveyed his issues to Ms. Sharra and asked to have his hearing rescheduled to the next meeting date. This he explained would give him time to heal and gain his full faculties before the meeting in order to fully present his case. Mr. Towne is in an air cast and sling and his cast, referred to as a Hydro-Cuff requires cold water to circulate through it every 30 minutes to reduce pain and swelling. Mr Towne is also required to constantly flex his repaired shoulder by sitting in a special Opti-Flex machine for 2 hours straight, four times a day with hydro-cuff ice treatments in between sessions. Ms. Sharra responded she would have to contact the town's attorney and ask the board members to vote on whether to grant this extension.

Mr. Towne wrote a letter to the board so that all board members would be fully informed of his circumstances and why he was requesting a continuance until the next meeting. The court put no time limit on when this hearing had to take place and there was no conflict of any issues having to do with the Van Dyke hearings as they have been closed to the public and the matter is still in litigation and now going before the State Supreme Court.

Prior to the start of tonight's scheduled meeting, Ms. Sharra requested the members of the board to accompany her into a closed private meeting. Whatever was talked about in this meeting was sealed to the public. Ms. Sharra was ordered by the court not to participate in any discussions or hearings in regards to this matter and yet; though we will never know what was said without a court order, she orchestrates a closed meeting just prior to a scheduled town meeting and then seals the minutes of the meeting. If she wasn't participating or instructing members on what to do, why even have a meeting and why seal the minutes from the public. Does anyone believe this was on the up and up?

Once the meeting began, Dean Beaman was the acting chair. The board received Mr. Towne's letter in which he explained what he had told Ms. Sharra earlier in the day and asked them to reschedule his hearing. A vote was taken and all members except for Mr. Jack Marsh voted not to give Towne an extension. In fact Mr. Van Dyke's attorney was allowed by the board to give testimony against Mr Towne's request. This was suppose to be an opportunity for Mr. Towne to present evidence on why the board should reconsider their decision and it was anything but. Mr Towne was denied his right to participate or to speak. Yet the board had no issues with allowing Attorney Radigan to voice his opinion, why was that? This is your Planning Board working in the best interest of the town and all of it's citizen's.

Judge Tucker has already ruled once on the board's not allowing Towne to have the opportunity to respond to them, I guess they either don't understand the law or just don't give a hoot.

Another lawsuit will be filed with the court in the morning in regards to their ruling tonight. This is your hard earned tax dollars being wasted defending the actions of this board.

Might we also add that Mr. Towne is an elderly, disabled man, with several health issues that will require more surgery in the near future and that all he has been seeking since the beginning of these hearings is fair treatment by this board; something he still hasn't been able to get.

UPDATE: CHIEF OF POLICE GARY PHILLIPS RELEASED A CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL INVESTIGATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC VIOLATING WPD RULES & REGULATIONS MANUAL

This is a copy of an INTERNAL INVESTIGATION provided by Brian Jordan. Brian had made a complaint to the Winchester Police Department and this is the response he received from Chief Gary Phillips. This is the result of INTERNAL INVESTIGATION conducted by Chief Phillips and handed to Brian in response to his concerns.

Winchester Police Department
6 Parker Street
Winchester, NH 03470
Telephone: 603-239-4814 .Fax: 603-239-6845
police@winchester.nh.gov

GaryA.Phillips
Chief of Police

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION

Case #s: IV09-3a, 3b, 3c
Date: May 19,2009
Complainant: Brian Jordan
Officer: Chief Phillips

On May 18, 2009 Brian Jordan of Winchester, NH came to the police station and filled out citizen complaint forms on three officers for three different complaints: Complaint on Sergeant Reppucci will be investigated by myself. Complaints on Officer Nathan Jette and Officer Kenneth Smith will be"' investigated by Patrol Sergeant Roberts.

IV09-3a Mr. Jordan alleges that on April 17,2009 in the rear of the Emergency .Services Building Mr. Jordan was talking to Paul McComb. Sergeant Reppucci approached the two and Brian left. After Brian departed allegedly Sergeant Reppucci told Paul McComb' " What ever you talking to him about, he's a troublemaker."

I interviewed Sergeant Reppucci. I asked Sergeant Reppucci if he remembered approaching Brian and Paul talking. Sergeant Reppucci stated that he did approach the two talking. Brian left immediately while staring at the ground acting strange. Sergeant Reppucci did not recall telling Paul to watch what he said to Brian, as he is a troublemaker.

I called Paul McComb. I inquired if Sergeant Reppucci had told him not to talk to Brian Jordan or that whatever you say to Brian Jordan he is a troublemaker. Paul stated that Dan, (Sergeant Reppucci) never said anything like that when Brian left from behind the police station..

Paul further told me that the next day or so Sergeant Reppucci saw him at the garage and inquired what he was talking to Brian about. Paul told Sergeant Reppucci that it was about cars etc. Sergeant Reppucci then told Paul that he was going to put an end to all of the gossiping. Paul stated that he thought Sergeant Reppucci might have meant that Brian was trying to cause someone trouble.. ..No basis for a formal complaint.. UNFOUNDED.

IV09-3b. The Officer observed a vehicle parked at Evergreen Cemetery in the dark. The officer performed his duties by checking out what initially appeared to be a suspicious vehicle. When the Officer lighted up the vehicle he observed it was" Mr. Jordan who routinely parks like that. Basis for inquiry, not for formal complaint.. .UNFOUNDED.

IV09-3c Officer Jette observed a vehicle pass the E.L.M. Center exit with a rear plate lamp out, Officer Jette got behind the vehicle and ran the plate. When it came back to Mr. Jordan Officer Jette decided not to stop the vehicle as, he was familiar with the owner, (Mr. Jordan) and felt that stopping and conversing with him would not be productive. Basis for inquiry, not for a formal complaint.. .UNFOUNDED

In addition to the letter above, Brian has had other issues with Officer Jette including in Richmond, where Nate Jette also works as a police officer and here is a letter to the Richmond Selectmen regarding a complaint about Nate Jette that was forwarded over to the Richmond Chief Andy Wood for review. This letter was also sent to the Town of Winchester Selectmen

because again Nate Jette is a full time police officer with the Town of Winchester and has exhibited this type of behavior before.

July 19, 2009

Town of Richmond/Town of Winchester
Board of Selectmen
105 Old Homestead Hwy
Richmond, NH 03470

Dear Board of Selectman,

On Saturday morning while on my way to a birthday party with my mother, we stopped at the Four Corners store in Richmond for some coffee.

Nate Jette was just ringing up his order when me and my mother walked in and should have been gone by the time we got our coffee and what not.

Instead Nate Jette deliberately waited and was confrontational and saying this crazy thing inviting me to his house to save me the time of having to send an anonymous letter to Nate's wife because Nate said word is out around the town, people are talking and have said you were going to send her an anonymous letter at some point in the future.

The look in Nate Jette's eyes was very concerning for my mother and she fears for her son's safety.

I have to say even more alarming is that Nate Jette was in full Richmond uniform (the same officer who is also a full time police officer in Winchester) at the time and on duty. At what point do the police stop the harassment and act like the professionals they are paid to be?

At what point do the police relinquish the power and control trip they are on and start abiding by the laws that they are supposed to enforce.

Sincerely,

Brian S Jordan

UPDATED: Signed copy of the response from Richmond Chief Andy Wood in defense of Officer Nate Jette actions.

Richmond Police Department
Andrew M. Wood Chief of Police
17-2 Winchester Road Richmond, NH 03470

August 4, 2009

Brian Jordan
4 Lawrence Street
Winchester, NH 03470

Ref: Letter regarding Officer Nate Jette Dear Mr. Jordan

I have reviewed your letter dated July 19, 2009 and have spoken with Officer Jette regarding the day you referred to. Officer Jette indicated that he did know you and did speak to you that day. His account of the meeting was very similar to yours with a few exceptions. He indicated that he was waiting in line, behind a female patron to check out when you and your mother came into the store. He stated that while you were standing behind him to check out, he acknowledged you and invited you to his home to speak with his wife in person regarding rumors.

Although you were concerned about "the look in Nate Jette's eyes" during the conversation, there is no indication in your letter or in my conversation with Officer Jette that he acted inappropriately or unprofessionally. There is no indication that Officer Jette violated any department policy nor any Federal, State or Local law, therefore, there will be no disciplinary action taken.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully

Andrew M. Wood Chief of Police

Cc: Board of Selectmen

Dispatch Tel: (603) 355-2000 - Business Tel: (603) 239-6007 - Fax (603) 239-8630 - E-mail police@richmond.nh.gov

Why did officer Nate Jette do what he did instead of just bidding Brian Jordan a good day and then walking away?

Do you think Chief Wood should have disciplined him when he didn't just walk away and instead invited him back to his house while on duty to discuss rumors?

Does it seem like Officer Jette can't seem to leave Brian Jordan alone?

What do you think Officer Jette trying to accomplish?

Especially when in uniform Officer Jette should be making good and sound decisions.

Do you feel this is appropriate behavior for a police officer to exhibit?

Brian Jordan can be contacted and he will be more than happy to provide copies of any or all of these documents.

Superior Court Judge Rules Against Sharra

In his ruling of the lawsuit filed by abutters to the Van Dyke condo project, judge Tucker ruled that Margaret Sharra did have ex-parte' communications with DES and that because of this unlawful conduct she disqualified herself from her participation and ruling on an abutters request for a reconsideration on the Planning Board's decision to over turn their denial of Van Dyke's application and that the board's decision be vacated and Sharra to be recused from the new hearing coming before the board this Monday night, Oct 5th at 6:00pm in the Town Hall auditorium. Word has it that Sharra is still meddling with the board and has appointed Dean Beaman to sit in as chair in her absence even though board member Larry Hill is the vice-chair and that she has appointed Ellen Cole to record the minutes over Princess Blodget; the board's secretary. She is also attempting to close the public hearing. How is attempting to stack the deck being fair to the public and how can these abutters hope to get a fair hearing based on evidence and facts?

quoting from the judge's decision:

"There is a problem with Sharra's decision to independently seek out evidence from the Division of Environmental Services in order to rebut the abutter's representations in his request for reconsideration, as well as her decision to present evidence to the Board without allowing the abutter to respond. 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 matter in any action of law. RSA 673:14, I (2008 supp.) If a juror sought information out-of-court on a case on which the juror was sitting, it would be cayse to dismiss the juror. See State v Sullivan, 157 N.H. 124.139 ( 2008 ) ( citing Kalianov v. Darland, 252.N.W.2nd 732,737 ( Iowa 1977 ) ). Here, Sharra's separate inquiry to DES disqualified her from participating in the board's discussion of the abutter's motion for reconsideration. Her involvement invalidates the Board's action on the motion. Winslow v. Holderness Planning Board 125 N.H. 262, 268 (1984 ).
The court finds and rules that the Planning Board's decision on the abutter's request for reconsideration must be vacated and the matter remanded to the board for a new determination on that motion."

This isn't the first time she has done this throughout these hearings, many times the abutter's attorney, Silas Little asked her to recuse herself for ex-parte' communications with other State Dept.s and the board, in it's ignorance voted her actions were okay and not unlawful when asked.
Our question here would also be, isn't the rest of the board tainted because of her participation in the beginning? Because they have heard evidence and made a previous decision based on this evidence, how can these abutters expect this board not to take that evidence into consideration when they make their decision? Can they be fair and just and base their decisions on this new hearing, or should they all be disqualified as other members of a jury would ? What's your opinion?